Cover not available
Part of
Typical and Impaired Processing in Morphosyntax
Edited by Vincent Torrens
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 64] 2020
► pp. 35–56

Integrating the filler

Evidence from double object constructions in Greek relative clauses

| Humboldt University of Berlin
This study investigates filler integration by adult native speakers of Greek. Object Relative Clauses (RCs) including ditransitives were tested in order to address (a) whether Greek adults show reactivation of the filler at the gap as proposed by the Trace Reactivation Hypothesis (TRH), and (b) the psychological reality of two theoretical analyses of ditransitives in Greek. The first analysis proposes that the base-generated order is direct object (DO)–indirect object (IO), where the DO c-commands the IO, and the second analysis proposes that the basic word order is IO–DO, where the IO c-commands the DO. Cross-Modal Priming (CMP) (Swinney et al., 1979) and Probe-Classification During Reading aloud (Dekydtspotter et al., 2010) were employed. Trace reactivation effects confirm the TRH only in the CMP task and only when adopting the IO–DO order as basic.
Keywords: filler integration in Greek, cross-modal priming, probe classification during reading aloud, recipient prepositional constructions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodological background
    • 2.1Cross-modal priming
    • 2.2Probe classification during reading
  • 3.Argument structure in Greek ditransitives
    • 3.1DO–IO as basic order
    • 3.2IO–DO as basic
  • 4.The present study
    • 4.1Experiment 1
      • 4.1.1Method
        • Participants
        • Materials
        • Pre-test
        • PCDR Procedure
          • Predictions
      • 4.1.2Results
    • 4.2Experiment 2
      • 4.2.1Method
        • Participants
        • Material
        • Procedure
        • Predictions
      • 4.2.2Results
    • 4.3Experiment 3
      • 4.3.1Method
        • Participants
        • Materials
        • Procedure
        • Predictions
      • 4.3.2Results
    • 4.4Experiment 4
      • 4.4.1Method
        • Participants
        • Materials
        • Procedure
        • Predictions
      • 4.4.2Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • Aknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.64.02pas
References (33)
References
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). Participles and voice. In A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Perfect explorations (pp. 1–36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Cross-linguistic and cross-categorical variation of datives. In M. Stavrou & A. Terzi (Eds.), Advances in Greek generative syntax. In Honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou (pp. 61–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Greek Syntax 2012: State-of-the art and perspectives. In M. Stavrou & S. Michalopoulou (Eds.), Studies in Greek linguistics. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (pp. 11–58). Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies (Manolis Triantaphyllidis Foundation).Google Scholar
Barss, A., & Lasnik, H. (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
Bowers, J., & Georgala, E. (2007). The syntax of goals and beneficiaries in Modern Greek. In A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Studies in the morpho-syntax of Greek (pp. 14–46). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Featherston, S. (1999). Antecedent-priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 3415–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Miller, K. (2009). Probing for intermediate traces in the processing of long-distance wh-dependencies in English as a second language. In M. Bowles, T. Ionin, S. Montrul, & A. Trembley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 113–124). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Miller, K., Schaefer, V., Chang, Y., & Kim, O. H. (2010). Clause-edge reactivation of fillers in processing English as a second language. In M. T. Prior, Y. Watanabe, & S. Lee (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 108–122). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The 'Good Enough' approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgala, E. (2012). Applicatives in their Structural and Thematic Function. A minimalist account of Multitransitivity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University.
Georgala, E., & Whitman, J. (2009). Ditransitives and applicative structure in Greek. In N. Adams, A. Cooper, F. Parrill, & T. Wier (Eds.), Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 77–91). Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Georgiafentis, M., & Lascaratou, C. (2007). On the inherently cloze relation of the verb and its direct object in ditransitive constructions: Evidence from Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 8, 31–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). A comprehensive grammar of the Modern Greek language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In S. Mchombo (Eds.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar (pp. 113–150). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19, 144–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Using on-line processing methods in language acquisition research. In S. Unsworth & E. Blom (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 139–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Cross­modal priming in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 456–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michelioudakis, D. (2011). Dative arguments and abstract case in Greek (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge.
Miller, K. (2011). Rethinking nonnative processing constraints: Evidence from L2 French. In L. Plonsky & M. Schierloh (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 109–120). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Second language processing of filler-gap dependencies: Evidence for the role of lexical access. In E. Voss, S. J. Tai, & Z. Li (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2011 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 82–94). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Facilitating the task for second language processing research: A comparison of two testing paradigms. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 613–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 531–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J. (1993). Reconsidering reactivation. In G. Altmann & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 321–350). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognition Processes, 6, 229–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing Arguments. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2007). Antecedent priming at trace positions in children's sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 175–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sekerina, I., Laurinavichyute, A., & Dragoy, O. (2018). What eye movements can and cannot tell us about wh-movement and scrambling. In K. Carlson, C. Clifton, Jr., & J. D. Fodor (Eds.), Grammatical approaches to language essays in honor of Lyn Frazier (pp. 147–165). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., Onifer, W., Prather, P. & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory and Cognition, 7, 54–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Koot, H., Silva, R., Felser, C. & Sato, M. (2016). Does Dutch a-scrambling involve movement? Evidence from antecedent priming. The Linguistic Review, 34, 739–776.Google Scholar