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
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