Abstract
Three experiments explored whether patterns of eye movements during reading might help explain syntactic prominence effects that are typically observed using reaction time tasks. Participants read sentences in which target words were in syntactically prominent or syntactically less prominent positions. Across all three experiments, using three types of syntactic prominence manipulations, there were fewer fixations and shorter reading times for words in more prominent positions, indicating that enhanced accessibility of syntactically prominent words is not caused by increased processing time. Rather, syntactic prominence appears to facilitate early encoding/lexical access and sentence integration processes while also, as shown previously, increasing activation of concepts in a comprehender’s sentence or discourse representation. We propose that enhanced encoding and sentence integration processes can be attributed to an increase in attentional resources for more prominent concepts, and that this increase derives from readers’ immediate sensitivity to informational prominence contours that are signaled by syntax.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7, 387–396.
Birch, S. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (1998, November). Eye movement measures of syntactic focus effects on pronoun resolution. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Dallas, TX.
Birch, S. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (2000). Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 30, 285–304. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp3003_4
Birch, S. L., & Garnsey, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 232–267. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1011
Birch, S. [L.], & Rayner, K. (1997). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 653–660.
Blutner, R., & Sommer, R. (1988). Sentence processing and lexical access: The influence of the focus-identifying task. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 359–367. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90061-7
Brédart, S., & Docquier, M. (1989). The Moses illusion: A follow-up on the focalization effect. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 9, 357–362.
Brédart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135–144. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(88)90009-1
Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1977). Integrative processes in comprehension. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cutler, A. (1976a). Beyond parsing and lexical look-up: An enriched description of auditory sentence comprehension. In R. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms: A collection of psycholinguistic studies (pp. 133–149). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Cutler, A. (1976b). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 55–60.
Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(79)90010-6
Ehrlich, K., & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: Eye movements and immediacy of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 75–87. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80007-3
Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1982). The interaction of subjectivization and concept placement in the processing of cleft sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 463–478.
Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory & Language, 56, 357–383. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004
Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 39–68. doi:10.1006/ jmla.1994.1003
Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675–698). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gergely, G. (1992). Focus-based inferences in sentence comprehension. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 209–240). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5–56. doi:10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244. doi:10.1017/ S0022226700016613
Hirotani, M., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (2006). Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 425–443. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.001
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Kintsch, W. (1992). How readers construct situation models for stories: The role of syntactic cues and causal inferences. In A. F. Healy, S. M. Kosslyn, & R. M. Shiffrin (Eds.), Essays in honor of William K. Estes: Vol. 2. From learning processes to cognitive processes (pp. 261–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klin, C. M., Weingartner, K. M., Guzmán, A. E., & Levine, W. H. (2004). Readers’ sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory & Cognition, 32, 511–522.
Langford, J., & Holmes, V. M. (1979). Syntactic presupposition in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 363–383. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(79)90022-2
McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R., Ward, G., & Sproat, R. (1993). Syntactic prominence effects on discourse processes. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 593–607. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1030
McKoon, G., Ward, G., Ratcliff, R., & Sproat, R. (1993). Morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors affecting the accessibility of discourse entities. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 56–75. doi:10.1006/ jmla.1993.1004
Moravcsik, J. E., & Healy, A. F. (1998). Effect of syntactic role and syntactic prominence on letter detection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 96–100.
Morris, R. K., & Folk, J. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1313–1322.
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157. doi:10.1080/ 01638539809545042
Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Filik, R., Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2007). Focus identification during sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1423–1445. doi:10.1080/ 17470210601100563
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information pro cessing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
Rochemont, M. S., & Culicover, P. W. (1990). English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scinto, L. F. (1978). Relation of eye fixations to old-new information in texts. In J. W. Senders, D. F. Fisher, & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Eye movements and the higher psychological functions (pp. 175–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Singer, M. (1976). Thematic structure and the integration of linguistic information. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 549–558. doi:10.1016/0022-5371(76)90049-9
Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882–888.
Ward, P., & Sturt, P. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35, 73–86.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1979). Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. In C. K. Oh & D. A. Dineen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 11. Presupposition (pp. 299–323). New York: Academic Press.
Zimmer, H. D., & Engelkamp, J. (1981). The given-new structure of cleft sentences and their influence on picture viewing. Psychological Research, 43, 375–389. doi:10.1007/BF00309223
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research was supported by Grant HD26765 from the National Institutes of Health. We thank Gail McKoon for sharing materials from McKoon, Ratcliff, Ward, and Sproat (1993) with us.Department of Psychology, College at Brockport, SUNY, Brockport, NY 14420
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Birch, S., Rayner, K. Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition 38, 740–752 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.6.740
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.6.740