Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2020
Edited by Elena Tribushinina and Mark Dingemanse
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 37] 2020
► pp. 38–52

Incremental structure building of preverbal PPs in Dutch

| Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics | Radboud University
| Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics | Radboud University
Incremental comprehension of head-final constructions can reveal structural attachment preferences for ambiguous phrases. This study investigates how temporarily ambiguous PPs are processed in Dutch verb-final constructions. In De aannemer heeft op het dakterras bespaard/gewerkt ‘The contractor has on the roof terrace saved/worked’, the PP is locally ambiguous between attachment as argument and as adjunct. This ambiguity is resolved by the sentence-final verb. In a self-paced reading task, we manipulated the argument/adjunct status of the PP, and its position relative to the verb. While we found no reading-time differences between argument and adjunct PPs, we did find that transitive verbs, for which the PP is an argument, were read more slowly than intransitive verbs, for which the PP is an adjunct. We suggest that Dutch parsers have a preference for adjunct attachment of preverbal PPs, and discuss our findings in terms of incremental parsing models that aim to minimize costly reanalysis.
Keywords: PP attachment, arguments and adjuncts, head-final constructions, self-paced reading, parsing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • The present study
  • 3.A self-paced reading experiment
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials and design
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Analysis and results
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1No argument advantage for postverbal PPs
    • 4.2A language-specific preference for adjunct attachment
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 27 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00036.coo
References (31)
References
Abney, Steven P. 1989. “A computational model of human parsing.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18 (1): 129–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Doug J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. “Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items.” Journal of Memory and Language 59 (4): 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus. 2011. “On being both head-initial and head-final.” Processing and producing head-final structures ed. by Hiroko Yamashita, Yuki Hirose and Jerome L. Packard. 325–348. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., Martin Mächler, Benjamin M. Bolker & Steven C. Walker. 2015. “Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boland, Julie E. & Austin Blodgett. 2006. “Argument status and PP-attachment.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35 (5): 385–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. “Sentence processing: A tutorial review.” Attention and performance ed. by Max Coltheart. 559–586. Hiltsdale, NJ: Ertbauin.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Charles Jr. Clifton. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Janet D. Fodor. 1978. “The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model.” Cognition 6 (4), 291–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Kyle Mahowald & Edward Gibson. 2015. “Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (33), 10336–10341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. “Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies.” Cognition 681: 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, John T. 2011. “What a rational parser would do.” Cognitive Science, 35 (3): 399–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Tim & Robert Frank. 2014. “Eliminating rightward movement: Extraposition as flexible linearization of adjuncts.” Linguistic Inquiry 45 (2): 227–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husain, Samar, Shravan Vasishth & Narayanan Srinivasan. 2014. “Strong expectations cancel locality effects: Evidence from Hindi.” PLOS ONE 9 (7): e100986. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Konieczny, Lars. 2000. “Locality and parsing complexity.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29 (6): 627–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. “Dutch as an SOV Language.” Linguistic Analysis 11: 111–136.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger, Evelina Fedorenko & Edward Gibson. 2013. “The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses.” Journal of Memory and Language 69 (4): 461–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William. 1973. “Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies.” Nature 244 (5417): 522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman. 2013. “The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch.” Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-programme ed. by Peter Spyns and Jan Odijk. 219–247. London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. “Linear order and constituency.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (1): 37–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, Bradley L. 1992. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith, Marcia Carlson & Lyn Frazier. 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 (3): 358–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Edward Gibson. 1999. “Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment.” Journal of Memory and Language 40 (3): 409–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1995. “PP Attachment and Argumenthood.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 261: 95–151.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lewis P., H. Nicholas Nagel & Beth A. Levine. 1993. “Preferences for a verb’s complements and their use in sentence processing.” Journal of Memory and Language 31 (1): 96–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speer, Shari R., & Charles Jr. Clifton. 1998. “Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension.” Memory & Cognition 26 (5): 965–978. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swart, Henriëtte de. 2007. “A cross-linguistic discourse analysis of the Perfect.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (12): 2273–2307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan, Katja Suckow, Richard L. Lewis & Sabine Kern. 2010. “Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures.” Language and Cognitive Processes 25 (4): 533–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zhao, Junyuan, Andrea E. Martin & Cas W. Coopmans
2024. Structural and sequential regularities modulate phrase-rate neural tracking. Scientific Reports 14:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.