Advertisement

Center-Embedded Sentences: An Online Problem or Deeper?

  • Janet Dean FodorEmail author
  • Benjamin Macaulay
  • Danielle Ronkos
  • Tally Callahan
  • Tyler Peckenpaugh
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)

Abstract

For gathering data on syntax-prosody relations, it has been unclear how to proceed experimentally. This is especially so for complex syntactic structures, such as the doubly center-embedded relative clause construction, which is syntactically well-formed but notoriously difficult to parse. These complex sentences can be especially revealing theoretically but cannot easily be elicited from speakers by presentation of picture choices or written preambles. While acknowledging that it may not be ideal, many studies of these and other complex constructions have resorted to a simple methodology in which written target sentences are read aloud. A basic methodological decision is then whether or not to permit (or encourage) the reader to preview the text before voicing it aloud. The results of reading with preview and of reading ‘cold’ without preview can both be informative, but in different ways. Reading without preview taps on-line performance, which can reveal possible syntactic/semantic expectations, and may shed light on the implicit prosody of silent reading. Reading with preview should provide a better window on prosodic competence: the reader’s inherent knowledge of the prosody/syntax alignment principles of the grammar. However, we maintain that previewing by reading aloud, as in the Double Reading design that we report on here, can be more informative of prosodic competence than the typical silent reading preview.

References

  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckman, M. E., & Elam, G. A. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI labelling, version 3.0. Resource document. The Ohio State University Research Foundation. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agus/tobi/labelling_guide_v3.pdf.
  3. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In John R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and Language Development (279–362). New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenthal, A. L. (1970). Language and Psychology: Historical Aspects of Psycholinguistics. John Wiley: Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  5. Fodor, J. D., Nickels, S., & Schott, E. (2018). Center-embedded sentences: What’s pronounceable is comprehensible. In R. G. de Almeida & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp. 139–168). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. A., & Garrett, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 2(7), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fodor, J. D., & Nickels, S. (2011). Pronouncing and comprehending center-embedded sentences. Cambridge, MA: Poster presented at 50 Years of Linguistics at MIT: A Scientific Reunion.Google Scholar
  8. Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Carlson, K. (2004). Don’t Break, or do: Prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua, 114(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & H. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4): 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghini, M. (1993). Φ-formation in Italian: A new proposal. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 12(2), 41–78.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hudson, R. (1996). The difficulty of (so-called) self-embedded structures. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 283–314.Google Scholar
  14. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jun, S.-A. (2010). The implicit prosody hypothesis and overt prosody in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1201–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karlsson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, E., & Nakayama, M. (2001). Syntactic and positional similarity effects in the processing of Japanese embeddings. In Nakayama, M (Ed.), Sentence processing in east asian languages, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 419–491). New York, London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistic computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistic Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
  20. RStudio Team. (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R [Computer software]. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. http://www.rstudio.com/.
  21. Sampson, G. (1996). From central embedding to empirical linguistics. In J. Thomas & M. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language research (pp. 14–26). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(2), 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis [Computer software]. New York: Springer. http://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Dean Fodor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Benjamin Macaulay
    • 1
  • Danielle Ronkos
    • 1
  • Tally Callahan
    • 1
  • Tyler Peckenpaugh
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate Center, CUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations