Processing Verb Meanings and the Declarative/Procedural Model: A Developmental Study

According to the Declarative/Procedural Model, the lexicon depends on declarative memory while grammar relies on procedural memory. Furthermore, procedural memory underlies the sequential processing of language. Thus, this system is important for predicting the next item in a sentence. Verb processing represents a good candidate to test this assumption. Semantic representations of verbs include information about the protagonists in the situations they refer to. This semantic knowledge is acquired implicitly and used during verb processing, such that the processing of a verb preactivates its typical patients (e.g., the window for break). Thus, determining how the patient typicality effect appears during children’s cognitive development could provide evidence about the memory system that is dedicated to this effect. Two studies are presented in which French children aged 6–10 and adults made grammaticality judgments on 80 auditorily presented sentences. In Experiment 1, the verb was followed by a typical patient or by a less typical patient. In Experiment 2, grammatical sentences were constructed such that the verb was followed either by a typical patient or by a noun that could not be a patient of that verb. The typicality effect occurs in younger children and is interpreted in terms of developmental invariance. We suggest that this effect may depend on procedural memory, in line with studies that showed that meaning is necessary to allow procedural memory to learn the sequence of words in a sentence.

Psycholinguistic Evidence for Incipient Language Change in Mexican Spanish: The Extension of Differential Object Marking

Spanish marks animate and specific direct objects overtly with the preposition a, an instance of Differential Object Marking (DOM). However, in some varieties of Spanish, DOM is advancing to inanimate objects. Language change starts at the individual level, but how does it start? What manifestation of linguistic knowledge does it affect? This study traced this innovative use of DOM in oral production, grammaticality judgments and on-line comprehension (reading task with eye-tracking) in the Spanish of Mexico. Thirty-four native speakers (ages 18–22) from the southeast of Mexico participated in the study. Results showed that the incidence of the innovative use of DOM with inanimate objects varied by task: DOM innovations were detected in on-line processing more than in grammaticality judgments and oral production. Our results support the hypothesis that language variation and change may start with on-line comprehension.

Does Local Coherence Lead to Targeted Regressions and Illusions of Grammaticality?

Local coherence effects arise when the human sentence processor is temporarily misled by a locally grammatical but globally ungrammatical analysis (The coach smiled at the player tossed a frisbee by the opposing team). It has been suggested that such effects occur either because sentence processing occurs in a bottom-up, self-organized manner rather than under constant grammatical supervision (Tabor et al., 2004), or because local coherence can disrupt processing due to readers maintaining uncertainty about previous input (Levy, 2008b). We report the results of an eye-tracking study in which subjects read German grammatical and ungrammatical sentences that either contained a locally coherent substring or not and gave binary grammaticality judgments. In our data, local coherence affected on-line processing immediately at the point of the manipulation. There was, however, no indication that local coherence led to illusions of grammaticality (a prediction of self-organization), and only weak, inconclusive support for local coherence leading to targeted regressions to critical context words (a prediction of the uncertain-input approach). We discuss implications for self-organized and noisy-channel models of local coherence.

Equal Opportunity Interference: Both L1 and L2 Influence L3 Morpho-Syntactic Processing

We investigated cross-language influences from the first (L1) and second (L2) languages in third (L3) language processing, to examine how order of acquisition and proficiency modulate the degree of cross-language influences, and whether these cross-language influences manifest differently in online and offline measures of L3 processing. The study focused on morpho-syntactic processing of English as an L3 among Arabic-Hebrew-English university student trilinguals (n = 44). Importantly, both L1 (Arabic) and L2 (Hebrew) of participants are typologically distant from L3 (English), which allows overcoming confounds of previous research. Performance of trilinguals was compared to that of native English monolingual controls (n = 37). To investigate the source of cross-language influences, critical stimuli were ungrammatical sentences in English, which when translated could be grammatical in L1, in L2 or in both. Thus, the L3 morpho-syntactic structures included in the study were a mismatch with L1, a mismatch with L2, a Double mismatch, with both L1 and L2, or a no mismatch condition. Participants read the English sentences while their eye-movements were recorded (online measure), and they also performed grammaticality judgments following each sentence (offline measure). Across both measures, cross-language influences were assessed by comparing the performance of the trilinguals in each of the critical interference conditions to the no-interference condition, and by comparing their performance to that of the monolingual controls. L1 interference was evident in first pass sentence reading, and marginally in offline grammaticality judgment, and L2 interference was robust across second pass reading and grammaticality judgments. These results suggest that either L1 or the L2 can be the source of cross-language influences in L3 processing, but with different time-courses. The findings highlight the difference between online and offline measures of performance: processing language in real-time reflects mainly automatic activation of morpho-syntactic structures, whereas offline judgments might also involve strategic and meta-linguistic decision making. Together, the findings show that during L3 processing, trilinguals have access to all previously acquired linguistic knowledge, and that the multilingual language system is fully interactive.

Verb argument structure overgeneralisations for the English intransitive and transitive constructions: grammaticality judgments and production priming

We used a multi-method approach to investigate how children avoid (or retreat from) argument structure overgeneralisation errors (e.g., *You giggled me). Experiment 1 investigated how semantic and statistical constraints (preemption and entrenchment) influence children’s and adults’ judgments of the grammatical acceptability of 120 verbs in transitive and intransitive sentences. Experiment 2 used syntactic priming to elicit overgeneralisation errors from children (aged 5–6) to investigate whether the same constraints operate in production. For judgments, the data showed effects of preemption, entrenchment, and semantics for all ages. For production, only an effect of preemption was observed, and only for transitivisation errors with intransitive-only verbs (e.g., *The man laughed the girl). We conclude that preemption, entrenchment, and semantic effects are real, but are obscured by particular features of the present production task.

Does local coherence lead to targeted regressions and illusions of grammaticality?

Local coherence effects arise when the human sentence processor is temporarily misled by a locally grammatical but globally ungrammatical analysis ("The coach smiled at THE PLAYER TOSSED A FRISBEE by the opposing team"). It has been suggested that such effects occur either because sentence processing occurs in a bottom-up, self-organized manner rather than being under constant grammatical supervision (Tabor, Galantucci, & Richardson, 2004), or because local coherence can disrupt processing due to readers maintaining uncertainty about previous input (Levy, 2008). We report the results of an eye-tracking study in which subjects read German grammatical and ungrammatical sentences that either contained a locally coherent substring or not and gave binary grammaticality judgments. In our data, local coherence affected on-line processing immediately at the point of the manipulation. There was, however, no indication that local coherence led to illusions of grammaticality (a prediction of self-organization), and only weak, inconclusive support for local coherence leading to targeted regressions to critical context words (a prediction of the uncertain-input approach). We discuss implications for self-organized and noisy-channel models of local coherence.

Data convergence in syntactic theory and the role of sentence pairs

Most acceptability judgments reported in the syntactic literature are obtained by linguists being their own informants. For well-represented languages like English, this method of data collection is best described as a process of community agreement, given that linguists typically discuss their judgments with colleagues. However, the process itself is comparably opaque, and the reliability of its output has been questioned. Recent studies looking into this criticism have shown that judgments reported in the literature for English can be replicated in quantitative experiments to a near-perfect degree. However, the focus of those studies has been on testing sentence pairs. We argue that replication of only contrasts is not sufficient, because theory building necessarily includes comparison across pairs and across papers. Thus, we test items at large, i. e. independent of counterparts. We created a corpus of grammaticality judgments on sequences of American English reported in articles published in Linguistic Inquiry and then collected experimental ratings for a random subset of them. Overall, expert ratings and experimental ratings converge to a good degree, but there are numerous instances in which ratings do not converge. Based on this, we argue that for theory-critical data, the process of community agreement should be accompanied by quantitative methods whenever possible.

Object Cliticization in Standard Arabic

<p>Unlike displaced lexical DP objects in Standard Arabic (SA) syntax, displaced pronominal objects, however, have received less critical attention especially within Rizzi’s (1997, 2004) left periphery theory and, therefore, some areas of this constructions remain poorly understood. The present paper examines pronominal object cliticization in SA, the status of the clitic, the derivation of the process and the reasons behind its obligatory movement. The analysis is couched within Minimalist Syntax (Chomsky 2001, 2005) and Split CP (Rizzi, 1997, 2004) to explain the motivation for this movement and its landing site. To achieve the aim of the study, a questionnaire containing samples of the studied structures were presented to five native speakers of Arabic who were asked to provide grammaticality judgments. It is suggested that, in this context, the object clitic can be analyzed as undergoing focus movement as a separate verbal complement like a full DP with an additional cliticization process to the head T hosting the lexical verb. </p>