Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 125–140 | Cite as

Context Improves Comprehension of Fronted Objects

  • Line Burholt KristensenEmail author
  • Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
  • Mads Poulsen
Article

Abstract

Object-initial clauses (OCs) are associated with more processing difficulties than subject-initial clauses (SCs) in a number of languages (e.g. English, German and Finnish), but a supportive context can reduce or neutralize the difference between SCs and OCs with respect to reading times. Still, it is unresolved how context can affect the comprehension of OCs. In the present self-paced reading study of Danish, we therefore investigated both reading times, comprehension accuracy and response times for OCs and SCs. In line with previous studies on word order processing, OCs in an unsupportive context showed longer reading times than SCs, longer response times and a comprehension accuracy as poor as chance level. A manipulation of context showed no effect of reading time, but a supportive context had a stronger facilitating effect on comprehension (response accuracy and response time) for OCs than for SCs.

Keywords

Word order Syntax Context Sentence processing Comprehension 

Supplementary material

10936_2013_9241_MOESM1_ESM.doc (95 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 95 KB)

References

  1. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The role of contrast in the local licensing of scrambling in German: Evidence from online comprehension. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003a). Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter-versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 29, 871–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003b). Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  10. Dik, S. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Eberhard, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Sedivy, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erteschik-Shir, N. (2005a). On the architecture of topic and focus. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), On the architecture of topic and focus (pp. 33–57). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Erteschik-Shir, N. (2005b). Sound patterns of syntax: Object shift. Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 47–93.Google Scholar
  14. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hannay, M. (1991). Pragmatic function assignment and word order variation in a functional grammar of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harder, P., & Poulsen, S. (2001). Editing for speaking: First position, foregrounding and object fronting in Danish and English. In Ikonicitet og Struktur (pp. 1–22), Netværk for Funktionel Lingvistik, Engelsk Insititut, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
  18. Hyönä, J., & Hujanen, H. (1997). Effect of word order and case marking on sentence processing in Finnish: An eye fixation analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 841–858.Google Scholar
  19. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mak, W., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2008). Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Molnár, V. (2005). On different kinds of contrast. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 197–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Molnár, V., & Järventausta, M. (2003) Discourse configurationality in Finnish and Hungarian. In J. Hetland, & V. Molnár (Eds.), Structures of focus and grammatical relations Vol. 477 (pp. 231–262). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  25. Poulsen, M. (2008). Acceptability and processing of long-distance dependencies in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 31, 73–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide.Google Scholar
  27. Slioussar, N. (2011). Processing of a free word order language: The role of syntax and context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 291–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Team, R. D. C. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna.Google Scholar
  29. Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vallduví, E. (1993). The informational component. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  31. Vallduví, E., & Vilkuna, M. (1998). On rheme and kontrast. In P. W. Culicover & L. McNally (Eds.), The limits of syntax (pp. 79–108). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Vilkuna, M. (1989). Free word order in Finnish. Helsinki: Hakapaino Oy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Line Burholt Kristensen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
    • 2
  • Mads Poulsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut for Nordiske Studier og SprogvidenskabKøbenhavns UniversitetCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Scandinavian Studies and LinguisticsUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations