Incrementality in Processing Complements and Adjuncts: Construal Revisited

  • Britta StolterfohtEmail author
  • Holger Gauza
  • Melanie Störzer
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)


The paper looks at the varying degree of incrementality in online sentence processing. A model that captures such differences by reference to the type of constituents involved is Construal. Construal assumes different mechanisms for the processing of complements (primary relations) and adjuncts (non-primary relations). According to Construal, adjuncts, in contrast to complements, are not immediately attached to the current phrase structure, but loosely associated with it, and are interpreted within the current thematic processing domain. We compare Construal to an alternative approach, the Enlightened Incrementality Conjecture (EIC) that explains the differing degree of incrementality in sentence processing by reference to domains of Logical Form, and evaluate these two accounts in the light of results from processing order variations with complements and adjuncts in German.


  1. Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, S., & Tiemann, S. (to appear). Towards a model of incremental composition. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (pre-print).Google Scholar
  3. Boland, J. E. (2005). Visual arguments. Cognition, 95, 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003a). Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: On the importance of structure-independent order information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003b). Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter-versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 871–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2015). The argument dependency model. In G. Hickok & S. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 357–369). Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bott, O. (2010). The processing of events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bott, O., & Gattnar, A. (2015). The cross-linguistic processing of aspect: An eyetracking study on the time-course of aspectual interpretation in German and Russian. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(7), 877–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifton, C., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing. A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1997). Construal. Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey, W. (2001). About the whereabouts of indefinites. Theoretical Linguistics, 27, 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frey, W. (2003). Syntactic conditions on adjunct classes. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (pp. 163–209). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, W. (2004). A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte, 198, 153–190.Google Scholar
  16. Frey, W., & Pittner, K. (1998). Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Berichte, 176, 489–534.Google Scholar
  17. Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gauza, H. (2016). Position und Verarbeitung VP-interner Adjunkte. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  19. Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29(2), 145–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax - generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs, J. (1993). Integration. In M. Reis (Ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur (pp. 63–116). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs, J. (1999). Informational autonomy. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus. Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 56–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Krifka, M. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3), 243–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maienborn, C. (2001). On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 9(2), 191–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meng, M., Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (1999). Die Verarbeitung von Subjekt-Objekt Ambiguitäten im Kontext. In I. Wachsmuth & B. Jung (Eds.), Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft (pp. 244–249). St. Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
  28. Molnár, V. (1991). Das TOPIK im Deutschen und Ungarischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  29. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(1), 53–94.Google Scholar
  30. Scheepers, C., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2000). Linking syntactic functions with thematic roles: Psych-verbs and the resolution of subject-object ambiguity. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 95–135). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schütze, C. T., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 96–114.Google Scholar
  32. von Stechow, A., & Beck, S. (2015). Events, times, and worlds: An LF architecture. In C. Fortmann, W. Geuder, A. Lübbe, & I. Rapp (Eds.), Situationsargumente im Nominalbereich (pp. 13–46). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  33. Stolterfoht, B. (2005). Processing word order variations and ellipses: The interplay of syntax and information structure during sentence comprehension. (MPI Series in Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences 55). Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften.Google Scholar
  34. Störzer, M. (2017). Weshalb auf Mallorca wahrscheinlich alle Urlauber betrunken sind: Zur syntaktischen Position von Frameadverbialen und der Rolle der Informationsstruktur bei ihrer Verarbeitung. Tübingen: TOBIAS-lib Publikationssystem.Google Scholar
  35. Störzer, M., & Stolterfoht, B. (2018). Is German discourse-configurational? Experimental evidence for a topic position. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 20, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Traxler, M. (2008). Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Britta Stolterfoht
    • 1
    Email author
  • Holger Gauza
    • 2
  • Melanie Störzer
    • 3
  1. 1.German DepartmentUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.University Library Tübingen, University of TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations