Abstract
This study examined the processing of two types of Japanese causative cleft constructions (subject-gap vs. object-gap) by conducting an event-related brain potential experiment to clarify the processing mechanism of long-distance dependencies. The results demonstrated that the subject-gap constructions elicited larger P600 effects than the object-gap constructions. Based on these findings, we argue that the linear distance rather than the structural distance between the extracted argument (filler) and its original gap position is a crucial factor for determining processing costs of gap-filler dependency in Japanese causative cleft constructions. This argument indicates that (at least) some types of long-distance dependencies are sensitive to linear distance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The structural distance is defined in terms of nodes intervening between the filler and its gap as indicated by the black dots.
In their experiment, context was presented to render the use of cleft construction involving focus interpretations to be felicitous.
References
Cohen, L., & Mehler, J. (1996). Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 24(1), 94–102.
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203.
Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(2), 203–218.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411–1423.
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, M. (1959). On methods in the analyses of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.
Hiraiwa, K., & Ishihara, S. (2012). Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, slicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax, 15(2), 142–180.
Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2006). Processing Japanese relative clause in context. Paper Presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, CUNY.
Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371–375.
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.
Kahraman, B., Sato, A., Ono, H., & Sakai, H. (2011a). Incremental processing of gap-filler dependencies: Evidence from the processing of subject and object clefts in Japanese. The Proceeding of the Twelfth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp. 113–147.
Kahraman, B., Sato, A., Ono, H., & Sakai, H. (2011b). Why object clefts are easier to process than subject clefts in Japanese: Frequency or expectation? Technical Report of IECIE, 111(170), 67–72.
King, J. W., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602.
King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 78(3), 376–395.
Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language, 89(3), 537–585.
Matzke, M., Mai, H., Nager, W., Rüsseler, J., & Münte, T. (2002). The costs of freedom: An ERP study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(6), 844–852.
Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23(4), 477–494.
Miyamoto, E. T., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistic (pp. 342–355). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Nakatani, K. (2009). Is the nesting effect caused by structural complexity or structural frequency? A case study of Japanese NPI processing. Poster Presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, 192, University of California, Davis.
Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2010). An on-line study of Japanese nesting complexity. Cognitive Science, 34, 94–112.
Nunez, P. L. (1991). The linked-reference issue in EEG and ERP recording: Comments on the paper by Miller, Lutzenberger and Elbert. Journal of Psychophysiology, 5, 279–280.
Oldfield, R. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
Ono, H., & Ikemoto, Y. (2013). Binding and dependency length in gapless relative clauses. Technical Report of IECIE, 113(174), 87–92.
Ono, H., & Nakatani, K. (2010). Integration of Wh-phrases and predicates in Japanese sentence processing. Technical Report of IECIE, 110(163), 99–104.
Ono, H., & Nakatani, K. (2013). Integration costs in the processing of Japanese wh-interrogative sentences. Tokyo: Studies in Language Sciences, Kurosio Publishers.
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abda, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407–428.
Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 150–176.
Sato, A., Kahraman, B., Ono, H., & Sakai, H. (2007). Universals and specificities in relative clause processing: A view from Japanese causative relative clauses. Technical Report of IEICE, 107(138), 51–56.
Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I., & Frisch, S. (2003). The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German. Brain and Language, 86(1), 116–128.
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., Miyaoka, Y., Lim, H., & Koizumi, M. (2005). Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles, case-particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 34(3), 281–331.
Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. M. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 646–688.
Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82(4), 767–794.
Yano, M., Tateyama, Y., & Sakamoto, T. (2014). Processing of Japanese cleft constructions in context: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, doi:10.1007/s10936-014-9294-6.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (#13J04854, PI: Masataka Yano) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. We are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Tsutomu Sakamoto passed away during the review process of this paper. However, due to his significant contribution to this study, we acknowledge him as one of the co-authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yano, M., Sakamoto, T. An ERP Study of Causative Cleft Construction in Japanese: Evidence for the Preference of Shorter Linear Distance in Sentence Comprehension. J Psycholinguist Res 45, 407–421 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9359-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9359-1