Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Dec 15:6:1841.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01841. eCollection 2015.

Listeners Exploit Syntactic Structure On-Line to Restrict Their Lexical Search to a Subclass of Verbs

Affiliations

Listeners Exploit Syntactic Structure On-Line to Restrict Their Lexical Search to a Subclass of Verbs

Perrine Brusini et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Many experiments have shown that listeners actively build expectations about up-coming words, rather than simply waiting for information to accumulate. The online construction of a syntactic structure is one of the cues that listeners may use to construct strong expectations about the possible words they will be exposed to. For example, speakers of verb-final languages use pre-verbal arguments to predict on-line the kind of arguments that are likely to occur next (e.g., Kamide, 2008, for a review). Although in SVO languages information about a verb's arguments typically follows the verb, some languages use pre-verbal object pronouns, potentially allowing listeners to build on-line expectations about the nature of the upcoming verb. For instance, if a pre-verbal direct object pronoun is heard, then the following verb has to be able to enter a transitive structure, thus excluding intransitive verbs. To test this, we used French, in which object pronouns have to appear pre-verbally, to investigate whether listeners use this cue to predict the occurrence of a transitive verb. In a word detection task, we measured the number of false alarms to sentences that contained a transitive verb whose first syllable was homophonous to the target monosyllabic verb (e.g., target "dort" /dɔʁ/ to sleep and false alarm verb "dorlote" /dɔʁlɔt/ to cuddle). The crucial comparison involved two sentence types, one without a pre-verbal object clitic, for which an intransitive verb was temporarily a plausible option (e.g., "Il dorlote" / He cuddles) and the other with a pre-verbal object clitic, that made the appearance of an intransitive verb impossible ("Il le dorlote" / He cuddles it). Results showed a lower rate of false alarms for sentences with a pre-verbal object pronoun (3%) compared to locally ambiguous sentences (about 20%). Participants rapidly incorporate information about a verb's argument structure to constrain lexical access to verbs that match the expected subcategorization frame.

Keywords: lexical search; linguistic expectation; on-line syntactic structure construction; verb argument structure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Percentage of false alarms made by participants for each type of false alarm sentence presented, non-ambiguous FA sentences with a clitic (FA_CLI) in red (left-hand side) and ambiguous FA sentences (FA_AMB) in blue (right-hand side). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (by participants).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Altmann G. T. M., Kamide Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73, 247–264. 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68, 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bates D., Sarkar D. (2007). lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes. (Version 0.9975-12) [R package]. Available online at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/
    1. Boersma P., Weenink D. (2015). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. Version 5.4.09, retrieved 1 June 2015. Available online at: http://www.praat.org/
    1. Boland J. E. (2005). Visual arguments. Cognition 95, 237–274. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.008 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources