Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 65–81 | Cite as

Comprehending Noun Phrase Arguments and Adjuncts

  • Shelia M. Kennison
Article

Abstract

Two experiments investigated how readers comprehend noun phrase (NP) arguments and adjuncts. Previous research suggested that argument phrases are processed more quickly than adjunct phrases (Clifton, Speer, & Abney, 1991; Kennison, 1999; Schütze & Gibson, 1999; Speer & Clifton, 1998). The present experiments investigated whether the type of verb in the sentence context could influence how NP arguments and adjuncts were processed. Reading time was measured on sentences containing NP arguments and adjuncts preceded either by verbs occurring most frequently with NP arguments (biased transitive verbs) or by verbs occurring most frequently without NP arguments (biased intransitive verbs) (e.g., “Meredith read/performed every play/week.”). In Experiment 1, reading time was measured using a self-paced phrase-by-phrase moving window. In Experiment 2, reading time was measured using eye tracking. The results of both experiments indicated that, following biased transitive verbs, NP arguments were processed more quickly than NP adjuncts. When NPs followed biased intransitive verbs, there was no significant difference between the processing time of NP arguments and adjuncts.

NP arguments adjuncts sentence processing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, B. A., Clifton, C., Jr., & Mitchell, D. C. (1998). Lexical guidance in sentence processing? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 265-270.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.Google Scholar
  3. Clifton, C., Jr., & Ferreira, F. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Some experimental results. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  4. Clifton, C., Jr., Speer, S., & Abney, S. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251-271.Google Scholar
  5. Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1984). Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 307-319.Google Scholar
  6. Francis, W. N., & Kučera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  7. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  8. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 1-34.Google Scholar
  9. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.Google Scholar
  10. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.Google Scholar
  11. Holmes, V. M., Stowe, L. A., & Cupples, L. (1989). Lexical expectations in parsing complement verb sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 668-689.Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy, A., & Murray, W. S. (1984). Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 833-847.Google Scholar
  13. Kennison, S. M. (1999). Processing Agentive “by”-phrases in complex event and nonevent nominals. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 502-508.Google Scholar
  14. Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 461-475.Google Scholar
  15. MacDonald, M. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.Google Scholar
  16. MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.Google Scholar
  17. Mitchell, D. C. (1984). An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods of investigating immediate processes in reading. In D. E. Kieras & M. Just (Eds.), New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.Google Scholar
  20. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.Google Scholar
  21. Rayner, K., Sereno, S., Morris, R., Schmauder, R., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 21-50.Google Scholar
  22. Schütze, C. T., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 409-431.Google Scholar
  23. Speer, S. R., & Clifton, C. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 26, 965-978.Google Scholar
  24. Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.Google Scholar
  25. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.Google Scholar
  26. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528-553.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shelia M. Kennison
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations