Article published in:
Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure
Edited by Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy and Linnaea Stockall
[Language Faculty and Beyond 10] 2014
► pp. 83–118

Luigi piace a Laura?

Electrophysiological evidence for thematic reanalysis with Italian dative object experiencer verbs

| Department of Germanic Linguistics, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| RBCS – Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, IIT – Italian Institute of Technology, Genova, Italy
| Department of Germanic Linguistics, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany | School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
The syntactic properties of psych verbs have been debated in theoretical linguistics since the seminal paper by Belletti and Rizzi (1988). However, surprisingly little is known about the neural processes underlying the comprehension of psych verb constructions. Here, we report an electrophysiological study on Italian piacere-class verbs, which were presented in sentences with subject-verb-object (SVO) and object-verb-subject (OVS) orders and contrasted with Agent-Theme (“active”) verbs. At the verb position, we observed a biphasic N400–late positivity pattern for active versus piacere-class verbs in object-initial orders and a late positivity for piacere-class versus active verbs in subject-initial orders. These results demonstrate that thematic expectations are generated incrementally and may be based upon only a single argument. They further support the idea of structural differences between piacere-class verbs and other verb classes in Italian and suggest that these are used rapidly to inform language processing.
Published online: 24 July 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.10.05dro
References

References

Altmann, Gerry T.M. and Steedman, Mark
1988 “Interaction with context during human sentence processing.” Cognition 30: 191–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1997 “Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure.” In Elements of Grammar , Liliane Haegeman (Ed.), 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, McNew, Sandra, MacWhinney, Brain, Devescovi, Antonella and Smith, Stan
1982 “Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study.” Cognition 11: 245–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Joseph, Bader, Markus and Meng, Michael
2001 “Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German.” Lingua 111: 465–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2001 “Inversion as Focalization.” In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar , Aafke Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock (Eds), 60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 “Aspects of the Low IP Area.” In The Structure of CP and IP [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2], Luigi Rizzi (Ed.), 16–51. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi
1988 “Psych-verbs and θ-theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans
2004 “Unergative Adjectives and Psych Verbs.” In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 5], Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert (Eds), 84–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, Peter and Rovere, Giovanni
1998  PONS: Wörterbuch der italienischen Verben: Konstruktionen, Bedeutungen, Übersetzungen . Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, McElree, Brian, Schlesewsky, Matthias and Friederici, Angela D.
2004 “Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking.” Journal of Memory and Language 51: 495–522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina and Schlesewsky, Matthias
2006 “The extended Argument Dependency Model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages.” Psychological Review 113: 787–821. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias and Friederici, Angela D.
2003 “Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing.” Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 268–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, Zysset, Stefan, Friederici, Angela D.
., von Cramon, D. Yves and Schlesewsky, Matthias 2005 “Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension.” NeuroImage 26: 221–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Schlesewsky, Matthias
2008a “An alternative perspective on ‘semantic P600’ effects in language comprehension.” Brain Research Reviews 59: 55–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008b “Unmarked transitivity: a processing constraint on linking.” In Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface , Robert Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), 413–434. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009a “The Role of Prominence Information in the Real-Time Comprehension of Transitive Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Approach.” Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 19–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b  Processing Syntax and Morphology . A Neurocognitive Perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986  Italian Syntax . Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
1997 “Subjects and Clause Structure.” In The New Comparative Syntax , Liliane Haegeman (Ed.), 33–63. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2001 “A second thought on emarginazione: Destressing vs. ‘Right Dislocation’.” In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi [North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations 59], Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (Eds), 117–136. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
2004 “Toward a cartography of subject positions.” In The Structure of CP and IP [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2], Luigi Rizzi (Ed.), 115–165. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981  Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
1995  The Minimalist Program . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik , Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (Eds), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language , Michael Kenstowicz (Ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta
1988 “Who Dun It? The Influence of Actor-Patient Animacy and Type of Verb in the Making of Causal Attributions.” Journal of Memory and Language 27: 447–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen and Steedman, Mark
1985 “On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser.” In Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives , David Dowty, Lauri Karttunen and Arnold Zwicky (Eds), 320–357. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crocker, Matthew W.
1994 “On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor.” In Perspectives on sentence processing, Charles Clifton, Lyn Frazier and Keith Rayner (Eds), 245–266. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
DeLong, Katherine A., Urbach, Thomas P. and Kutas, Marta
2005 “Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity.” Nature Neuroscience 8: 1117–1121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, Kara D. and Kutas, Marta
1999 “A Rose by Any Other Name: Long-Term Memory Structure and Sentence Processing.” Journal of Memory and Language 41: 469–495. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda
1994 “Choice of Passive Voice Is Affected by Verb Type and Animacy.” Journal of Memory and Language 33: 715–736. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet D.
1998 “Learning to parse.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 285–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn and Fodor, Janet D.
1978 “The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model.” Cognition 6: 291–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, Christoph and Müller, Natascha
2008  Grundlagen der generativen Syntax: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch . Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gattei, Carolina, Vasishth, Shravan and Dickey, Michael W.
2011  The Role of Semantic Arguments Order and the Syntax-Semantics Interface in Spanish Sentence Comprehension . Poster presented at Structuring the Argument/Structurer l’argument (CNRS/Paris 8), Paris, France, September 5–7.
Gennari, Silvia P. and MacDonald, Maryellen C.
2008 “Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses.” Journal of Memory and Language 58: 161–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990  Argument Structure . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hruska, Claudia and Alter, Kai
2004 “Prosody in dialogues and single sentences: How prosody can influence sentence perception.” In Information structure: Theoretical and empirical evidence , Anita Steube (Ed.), 211–226. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Huynh, Huynh and Feldt, Leonard S.
1970 “Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 65: 1582–1589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, Edith, Harris, Anthony, Gibson, Edward and Holcomb, Phillip
2000 “The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty.” Language and Cognitive Processes 15: 159–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf
2005  Linking: Syntax und Semantik französischer und italienischer Gefühlsverben . Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Yuki
2008 “Anticipatory Processes in Sentence Processing.” Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 647–670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Simon
2008 A comparison of ‘thematic role’ theories. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Philipps-Universität, Marburg.
Kretzschmar, Franziska, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Staub, Adrian, Roehm, Dietmar and Schlesewsky, Matthias
2012 “Prominence facilitates ambiguity resolution: On the interaction between referentiality, thematic roles and word order in syntactic reanalysis.” In Case, word order and prominence. Interacting cues in language production and comprehension [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 40], Monique Lamers and Peter de Swart (Eds), 239–271. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, DeLong, Katherine A. and Smith, Nathaniel J.
2011 “A Look around at What Lies Ahead: Prediction and Predictability in Language Processing.” In Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Generate a Future , Moshe Bar (Ed.), 190–207. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta and Hillyard, Steven A.
1984 “Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association.” Nature 307: 161–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, Van Petten, Cyma and Kluender, Robert
2006 “Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005).” In Handbook of Psycholinguistics , 2nd edition, Matthew J. Traxler and Morton A. Gernsbacher (Eds), 659–724. London: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan
2010  The Locative Syntax of Experiencers . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Bates, Elizabeth and Kliegl, Reinhold
1984 “Cue Validity and Sentence Interpretation in English, German, and Italian.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23: 127–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauchly, John W.
1940 “Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution.” Annual of Mathematical Statistics 11: 204–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L. and Holcomb, P.
1992 “Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.” Journal of Memory and Language 31: 785–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995  Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999  Cases and Thematic Roles – Ergative, Accusative and Active . Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariation bei psychischen Verben.” In Semantische Rollen , Rolf Kailuweit and Martin Hummel (Eds), 377–401. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1982  Issues in Italian Syntax . Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986 “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro.” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.Google Scholar
1997 “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Elements of Grammar , Liliane Haegeman (Ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Locality and Left Periphery.” In Structures and Beyond [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3], Adriana Belletti (Ed.), 223–251. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005 “On Some Properties of Subjects and Topics.” In Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa , Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert and Giuseppina Turano (Eds), 203–224. Venezia: Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia.Google Scholar
2006 “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects.” In Wh-Movement: Moving On , Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver (Eds), 97–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, Matthias and Bornkessel, Ina
2006 “Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject-object ambiguities in language comprehension.” Brain Research 1098: 139–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Cynthia K. and Lee, Miseon
2009 “Psych verb production and comprehension in agrammatic Broca’s aphasia.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 22: 354–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, Jos J.A., Brown, Colin M., Zwitserlood, Pienie, Kooijman, Valesca and Hagoort, Peter
2005 “Anticipating Upcoming Words in Discourse: Evidence From ERPs and Reading Times.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31: 443–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Meerendonk, Nan, Kolk, Herman H.J., Chwilla, Dorothee J. and Vissers, Constance Th. W.M.
2009 “Monitoring in language perception.” Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 1211–1224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wicha, Nicole Y.Y., Moreno, Eva M. and Kutas, Marta
2004 “Anticipating Words and Their Gender: An Event-related Brain Potential Study of Semantic Integration, Gender Expectancy, and Gender Agreement in Spanish Sentence Reading.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 1272–1288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Susann, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Hirotani, Masako and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina
2008 “The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese.” Brain and Language 107: 133–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar