Abstract
We conducted two word-by-word reading experiments to investigate the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases (PPs). These PPs differ in thematic role, relative frequency, and possibly in argument status. The results showed a difference in the timing of garden path effects such that the detection of implausible dative recipients (which are clearly arguments) was delayed relative to the detection of implausible instruments (which may not be arguments). They also demonstrated that commitments to syntactic structure were made at the preposition for both dative and instrument PPs. While these results refute delay models of parsing (e.g., Britt, 1994) and syntax-first accounts of PP-attachment (e.g., Frazier, 1978; Frazier & Clifton, 1996), they support constraint-based lexicalist models that enable verb bias and plausibility information to compete (Garnsey, Pearlmutter, Myers, & Lotocky, 1997).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Boland, J. E. (1997). Resolving syntactic category ambiguities in discourse context: Probabilistic and discourse constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 588-615.
Boland, J. E., & Boehm-Jernigan, H. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 684-719.
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M., (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413-432.
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251-283.
Britt, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251-283.
Britt, M. A., Gabrys, G., & Perfetti, C. A. (1993). A restrictive interactive model of parsing. In Conference Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 260-265).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clifton, C., Jr., Speer, S. R., & Abney, S. P. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251-271.
Ferreira, F. N., & Henderson, J. M. (1995). Reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis. In J. M. Henderson, M. Singer, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reading and Language Processing (pp. 119-147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connectieut.
Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading (pp. 303-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69-82.
Lewis, R. L., & Boland, J. E. (2000). In Search of Fully Lexical Parsing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
Schutze, C. T. (1995). PP attachment and argumenthood. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 26, 95-151.
Schutze, C., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 409-431.
Sedivy, J., & Spivey-Knowlton, M. (1994). The use of structural, lexical, and pragmatic information in parsing attachment ambiguities. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp. 389-413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Speer, S. R., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 965-978.
Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597-632.
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blodgett, A., Boland, J.E. Differences in the Timing of Implausibility Detection for Recipient and Instrument Prepositional Phrases. J Psycholinguist Res 33, 1–24 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000010512.39960.27
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000010512.39960.27