Literature DB >> 15002169

Differences in the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases.

Allison Blodgett1, Julie E Boland.   

Abstract

We conducted two word-by-word reading experiments to investigate the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases (PPs). These PPs differ in thematic role, relative frequency, and possibly in argument status. The results showed a difference in the timing of garden path effects such that the detection of implausible dative recipients (which are clearly arguments) was delayed relative to the detection of implausible instruments (which may not be arguments). They also demonstrated that commitments to syntactic structure were made at the preposition for both dative and instrument PPs. While these results refute delay models of parsing (e.g., Britt, 1994) and syntax-first accounts of PP-attachment (e.g., Frazier, 1978; Frazier & Clifton, 1996), they support constraint-based lexicalist models that enable verb bias and plausibility information to compete (Garnsey, Pearlmutter, Myers, & Lotocky, 1997).

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15002169     DOI: 10.1023/b:jopr.0000010512.39960.27

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  3 in total

1.  Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension.

Authors:  S R Speer; C Clifton
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-09

2.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints.

Authors:  M Spivey-Knowlton; J C Sedivy
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1995-06

3.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected].

Authors:  M C MacDonald; N J Pearlmutter; M S Seidenberg
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 8.934

  3 in total
  3 in total

1.  The nature and time course of pragmatic plausibility effects.

Authors:  Wayne S Murray
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2006-01

2.  Using instruments to understand argument structure: Evidence for gradient representation.

Authors:  Lilia Rissman; Kyle Rawlins; Barbara Landau
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2015-06-06

3.  Hyper-active gap filling.

Authors:  Akira Omaki; Ellen F Lau; Imogen Davidson White; Myles L Dakan; Aaron Apple; Colin Phillips
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-04-10
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.