Thematic processing of adjuncts: Evidence from an eye-tracking experiment
Tóm tắt
We investigated thematic processing in sentences containing a prepositional phrase that was ambiguous between a locative and a temporal interpretation. We manipulated context (temporal or locative), target sentence (temporal or locative), and whether or not the main verb of the target and the context was repeated. Results showed that context dictated the participants’ thematic expectations. Thematically, congruent target and context pairs were read faster than incongruent pairs. This effect was not modulated by verb repetition. We argue that wh-words cause readers to lodge semantically vacuous thematic roles in their discourse representation that bias a reader’s interpretation of subsequent thematically ambiguous adjuncts in their discourse representation.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18, 129–144.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &Gulikers, L. (1995).The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Boland, J. E., &Boehm-Jernigan, H. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 684–719.
Carlson, G., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.),Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations (pp. 263–288). San Diego: Academic Press.
Clifton, C., Jr.,Speer, S., &Abney, S. P. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 251–271.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language,67, 547–619.
Ferretti, T. R., McCrae, K., &Hatherall, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas and thematic role concepts.Journal of Memory & Language,44, 516–547.
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.),Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–90). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gordon, P. C., &Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse.Cognitive Science,22, 389–424.
Gruber, J. (1965).Studies in lexical relations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club]
Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., &Clayes, E. L. (2002). The influence of only on syntactic processing of “long” relative clause sentences.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 225–240.
Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., &Van Gompel, R. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 461–475.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review,101, 676–703.
McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., &Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb specific concepts.Language & Cognitive Processes,12, 137–176.
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in online sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 283–312.
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 & Verbal Behavior,22, 358–374.
Rayner, K., &Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity.Memory & Cognition,14, 191–201.
Rayner, K., &Pollatsek, A. (1989).The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schütze, C. T., &Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment.Journal of Memory & Language,40, 409–431.