Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of NP Type on the Resolution of Word-Order Ambiguities

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Locally ambiguous NP1 NP2 V clauses in Dutch are preferably assigned a subject-object rather than an object-subject interpretation, presumably on the basis of structurally based principles such as the Active-Filler Strategy. The present study investigates whether this preference can be affected by a nonconfigurational factor, namely the nature of NP2. The type of an NP (indefinite NPs, full definite NPs, pronouns) conveys information about the discourse status of the NP referent, which, in turn, is associated with a specific syntactic position. More specifically, pronouns are used to refer to given, salient entities in the discourse (topics); and NPs with such referents are generally encoded in subject position. A self-paced reading experiment shows that NP1 NP2 V relative clauses are preferably interpreted as subject-object when NP2 is a full definite NP (e.g., de vrouwen “the women”), but not when NP2 is the second person pronoun jullie (“you”-PL). This suggests that the structural bias for a subject-first order is not as strong as has been previously assumed, but is influenced by discourse information encoded in the NPs. Implications for parsing models are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses. An across the board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (1999). Sentential context effects (or lack thereof) on the processing of subject–object ambiguities in German. Paper Presented at the AMLaP 99 Conference, Edinburgh.

  • Bates, E. R., & Devescovi, A. (1989). Competition and sentence production. In B. MacWinney & E. R. Bates (Eds.), Cross-linguistic studies of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, J., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1992). Ms, University of Aachen, University of Vienna, Birbeck College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path; The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferstl, E., & Friederici, A. D. (1997). Inter-sentential context effects on parsing: A study using event-related potentials. Paper presented at the 10th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA.

  • Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Frazier, L. (1987). Processing syntactic structures: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 519–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap-filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., & Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology, 47, 193–221.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1982). The mental representation of discourse in a focused memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics, 1, 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1985). On the real-time character of interpretation during reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., Hickok, G., & Schütze, C. T. (1994). Processing empty categories: A parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 381–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in spoken English. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. C., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 216–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentationen und Verarbeitung grammatischen Wissens. Sanct Augustin: Infix Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J., & Hujanen, H. (1997). Effects of case marking and word order on sentence parsing in Finnish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 841–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E. (1997). PhD thesis, University of Groningen.

  • Kaan, E. (1998). Sensitivity to NP-type: Processing subject–object ambiguities in Dutch. Journal of Semantics, 15, 335–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipka, S. (1998). Referential context and the resolution of subject/object relative-clause ambiguities in German. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, P., & Vonk, W. (1999). Information structure and relative clause processing. Poster presented at the AMLaP 99 Conference, Edinburgh.

  • Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1995). The processing of relative clauses varying in syntactic complexity and semantic plausibility: An analysis with event related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing, In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.

  • Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwborg, E. (1968). De distributie van het onderwerp en het lijdend voorwerp. Antwerp: Plantyn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thompson and W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raining text. Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 295–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A., & Garrod, S. (1981). Understanding written language. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. (1985). The role of background knowledge in Psychological accounts of text comprehension. In J. Alwood & E. Hjelmquist (Eds.), Foregrounding background. Lund: Doxa AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Krems, J. (2000). The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer pp. 65–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influence of context-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stojanovic, D. (1997). Processing filler-gap dependencies in Serbo-Croatian. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Santa Monica, CA.

  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gompel, R. P. G. (1995). MA thesis, University of Nijmegen.

  • Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., Liveredge, S. P., & Traxler, M. J. (1999). Testing constraint-based and two-stage theories: Competitions vs. reanalysis. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.

  • Zwart, C. J. W. (1996). Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Box 90999, Durham, NC, 27708-0999

    Edith Kaan

Authors
  1. Edith Kaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaan, E. Effects of NP Type on the Resolution of Word-Order Ambiguities. J Psycholinguist Res 30, 529–547 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010417614058

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010417614058

Search

Navigation