We report results from a self-paced silent-reading study and a self-paced reading-aloud study examining ambiguous forms (heteronyms) of Russian animate and inanimate nouns which are differentiated in speech through word stress, for example, uCHItelja.TEACHER.GEN/ACC.SG and uchiteLJA.TEACHERS.NOM.PL.1 During reading, the absence of the auditory cue (word stress) to word identification results in morphologically ambiguous forms since both words have the same inflectional marking, -ja. Because word inflection is a reliable cue to syntactic role assignment, the ambiguity affects the level of morphology and of syntactic structure. However, word order constraints and frequency advantage of the GEN over both the NOM and the ACC noun forms with the -a/-ja inflection should pre-empt two different syntactic parses (OVS vs. SVO) when the heteronym is sentence-initial. We inquired into whether the parser is aware of the multi-level ambiguity and whether selected conflicting cues (case, word order, animacy) can prime parallel access to several structural parses. We found that animate and inanimate nouns patterned differently. The difference was consistent across the experiments. Against the backdrop of classical sentence processing dichotomies, the emergent pattern fits with the serial interactive or the parallel modular parser hypothesis.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4
3.
BatesE.MacWhinneyB. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinneyB. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900010643
4.
BatesE.MacWhinneyB.CaselliC.DevescoviA.NataleF.VenzaV. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00296.x
5.
BinanzerA.BittnerA.CristanteV. (2018, May). The processing of object-first declarative sentences and Wh-questions including weak masculine nouns in comparison [Poster presentation]. 31st Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Davis, CA, United States.
6.
BornkesselI.SchlesewskyM. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787
7.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM.TanakaM. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172–189.
8.
ChoiY.TrueswellJ. C. (2010). Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 41–61.
9.
ChristiansonK.HollingworthA.HalliwellJ. F.FerreiraF. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden-path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
CristanteV. (2016). The processing of non-canonical sentences in children with German as a first or second language and German adults. Evidence from an eye-tracking study [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Westfalian-Wilhems University of Münster.
12.
CrockerM. (1999). Mechanisms for sentence processing. In GarrodS.PickeringM. (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 191–233). Psychology Press.
13.
DittmarM.Abbot-SmithK.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2008). German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79, 1152–1167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01181.x
14.
ElmanJ. L.HareM.McRaeK. (2004). Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In TomaselloM.SlobinD. (Eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 161–188). Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
FerreiraF. (2003). The misinterpretation of non-canonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203.
16.
FerreiraF.BaileyK. G. D.FerraroV. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158
17.
FerreiraF.ChristiansonK.HollingworthA. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005290706460
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503
20.
FrazierL. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630427
21.
FrazierL.CliftonCh. J. (1996). Construal. MIT Press.
22.
FrazierL.Flores d’ArcaisG. B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing. A study of gap-filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5
23.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1987). Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401808
24.
FriedericiA. D.MecklingerA.SpencerK. M.SteinhauerK.DonchinE. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00065-3
GamperJ. (2016). Satzinterpretationsstrategien mehr- und einsprachiger Kinder im Deutschen [Sentence interpretation strategies of multi- and monolingual children in German]. Narr Francke Attempto.
27.
HemforthB. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens [Cognitive parsing: Representation and processing of linguistic knowledge]. Infix.
KamideY.ScheepersC.AltmannG. T. M. (2006). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021933015362
30.
KempeV.MacWhinneyB. (1998). The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(4), 543–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198004045
31.
KempeV.MacWhinneyB. (1999). Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(2), 129–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386329
32.
KnoeferleP.CrockerM. W.ScheepersC.PickeringM. J. (2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role assignment: Evidence from eye movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95(1), 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002
LavitskayaY. (2015). Prosodic structure of Russian: A psycholinguistic investigation of the metrical structure of Russian nouns [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Konstanz.
35.
LevyR.BicknellK.SlatteryT.RaynerK. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21086–21090. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907664106
36.
MacDonaldM. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 9, 157–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402115
37.
MacDonaldM. C.PearlmutterN. J.SeidenbergM. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
38.
MacWhinneyB. (2002). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.005
39.
MacWhinneyB. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In KrollJ. F.de GrootM. A. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford University Press.
40.
MakW. M.VonkW.SchriefersH. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2837
41.
MakW. M.VonkW.SchriefersH. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001
McDonaldJ. L. (1987). Assigning linguistic roles: The influence of conflicting cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(1), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90065-9
44.
MeirN.ParshinaO.SekerinaI. (2019, September). How two morphological systems shape processing of ACC case in bilingual children [Poster presentation]. 25th Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing Conference, Moscow, Russia.
45.
MitrofanovaN.SekerinaI.SauermannA.GagarinaN.WestergaardM. (2019, September). Language-specific morphology facilitates predictive use of case marking in bilingual children [Poster presentation]. 25th Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing Conference, Moscow, Russia.
46.
MorettL. M.MacWhinneyB. (2013). Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000107
Prat-SalaM.BraniganH. (2000). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2668
49.
R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
RitterE.RosenS. (1998). Delimiting events in syntax. In GeuderW.ButtM. (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints (pp. 135–164). Center for the Study of Language and Information.
52.
RoelofsA.MeyerA. (1998). Metrical structure in planning the production of spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.922
53.
RoeschA. D.ChondrogianniV. (2014). Morphological cues in the comprehension of wh-questions in German-speaking simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children. In OrmanW.ValleauM. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 380–392). Cascadilla Press.
54.
SchlesewskyM.BornkesselI. (2006). Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject–object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1098(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.080
55.
SchlesewskyM.FanselowG.KlieglR.KremsJ. (2000). Preferences for grammatical functions in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In HemforthB.KoniecznyL. (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 65–93). Kluwer.
56.
SekerinaI. (2003). Scrambling and processing: Dependencies, complexity and constraints. In KarimiS. (Ed.), Scrambling and word order (pp. 301–324). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758403.ch13
57.
SlatteryT. J.SturtP.ChristiansonK.YoshidaM.FerreiraF. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden-path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
58.
SlioussarN. (2018). Forms and features: The role of syncretism in number agreement attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.03.006
Spivey-KnowltonM.TrueswellJ.TanenhausM. K. (1993). Context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 276–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078826
61.
TraxlerM. J.MorrisR. K.SeelyR. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2836
62.
TraxlerM. J.WilliamsR. S.BlozisS. A.MorrisR. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010
63.
TrueswellJ. C.SekerinaI.HillN. M.LogripM. L. (1999). The kindergarten path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134.
64.
TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K.GarnseyS. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
65.
van GompelR. P. G.PickeringM. J.PearsonJ.JacobG. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
66.
WeberA.GriceM.CrockerM. (2006). The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eye-movements. Cognition, 99(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.001
67.
WitzelJ.CorneliusS.WitzelN.ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2013). Testing the viability of webDMDX for masked priming experiments. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.80.07wit
68.
World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194.
69.
YearJ. E. (2003). Sentence processing within the competition model. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 3, 1–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
