Abstract
There exists a clear association between animacy and the grammatical function of transitive subject. The grammar of some languages require the transitive subject to be high in animacy, or at least higher than the object. A similar animacy preference has been observed in processing studies in languages without such a categorical animacy effect. This animacy preference has been mainly established in structures in which either one or both arguments are provided before the verb. Our goal was to establish (i) whether this preference can already be observed before any argument is provided, and (ii) whether this preference is mediated by verbal information. To this end we exploited the V2 property of Dutch which allows the verb to precede its arguments. Using a visual-world eye-tracking paradigm we presented participants with V2 structures with either an auxiliary (e.g. Gisteren heeft X … ‘Yesterday, X has …’) or a lexical main verb (e.g. Gisteren motiveerde X … ‘Yesterday, X motivated …’) and we measured looks to the animate referent. The results indicate that the animacy preference can already be observed before arguments are presented and that the selectional restrictions of the verb mediate this bias, but do not override it completely.
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (3). 435-448.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry. T.M., Yuki Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73. 247–264.10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1Search in Google Scholar
Audacity Team. http://audacityteam.org.Search in Google Scholar
Bader, Markus, Josef Bayer. 2006. Case and linking in language comprehension: Evidence from German. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-4344-9Search in Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, Richard K. Warren. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21. 47-67.10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-XSearch in Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–278.10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001Search in Google Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje. 2011. Who’s first and what’s next: Animacy and word order variation in Dutch language production. PhD thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Search in Google Scholar
van Berkum, Jos J.A., Colin M. Brown, Pienie Zwitserlood, Valesca Kooijman, Peter Hagoort. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31. 443-467.Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, David Weenink. 2016. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.21, retrieved 25 September 2016 from http://www.praat.org/.Search in Google Scholar
Bosker, Hans Rutger, Hugo Quené, Ted Sanders, Nivja de Jong. 2014. Native ‘um’s elicit prediction of low-frequency referents, but non-native ‘um’s do not. Journal of Memory and Language 75.104-116.Search in Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Andrej Malchukov, Marc Richards. 2015. Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110344134Search in Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky. 2009. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 19-58.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky. 2013. Reconciling time, space and function: A new dorsal-ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 125. 60-76.Search in Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, Mikihiro Tanaka. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118 (2). 172-189.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare, Christopher D. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Butt, Miriam, Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG’01 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil, Martin Paczynski. 2013. Prediction, events, and the advantage of agents: The processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cognitive Psychology 67. 73-97.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Czypionka, Anna. 2014. The interplay of object animacy and verb class in representation building. PhD thesis. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany.Search in Google Scholar
Dahan, Delphine, Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2004. Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30. 498-513.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. In Unterbeck, Barbara, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen, Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition I: Approaches to gender, 99-115. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110802603.99Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen, Kari Fraurud. 1996. Animacy in Grammar and Discourse. In Fretheim, Thorstein, Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 47-64. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.38.04dahSearch in Google Scholar
DeLong, Katherine A., Thomas P. Urbach, Marta Kutas. 2005. Probabilistic word preactivation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8. 1117-1121.10.1038/nn1504Search in Google Scholar
Fauconier, Stefanie. 2011. Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121 (3). 533-547.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.014Search in Google Scholar
Federmeier, Kara D. 2007. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 44. 491-505.10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki. 2008. Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 647-670.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00072.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kemmerer, David. 2012. The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca’s area. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 50-66.10.1002/lnc3.322Search in Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, Karin Harbusch. 2004. A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. In Pechmann, Thomas, Christopher Habel (eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production, 173-181. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894028.173Search in Google Scholar
Kukona, Anuenue, Shin-Yi Fang, Karen A. Aicher, Helen Chen, James S. Magnuson. 2011. The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition 119 (1). 23-42.10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina R., T. Florian Jaeger. 2016. What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31. 32-59.10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299Search in Google Scholar
Lamers, Monique J.A. 2012. Argument linearization in Dutch: A multi-factorial approach. In Lamers, Monique J.A., Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, Word Order, and Prominence: Psycholinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to Argument Structure, 121-144. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_6Search in Google Scholar
Lamers, Monique J.A., Helen de Hoop. 2014. Animate object fronting in Dutch: A production study. In MacWinney, Brian, Andrej Malchukov, Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar Usage. 42-53, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2012. The original sin of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science 4. 396-403.10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01195.xSearch in Google Scholar
Lockwood, Hunter T., Monica Macaulay. 2012. Prominence hierarchies. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 431-446.10.1002/lnc3.345Search in Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Elizabeth Bates. 1989. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mak, Willem M., Wietske Vonk, Herbert Schriefers. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 50-68.10.1006/jmla.2001.2837Search in Google Scholar
Mak, Willem M., Wietske Vonk, Herbert Schriefers. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: the hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 466-490.10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203-221.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005Search in Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25. 71-102.10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9Search in Google Scholar
Minkoff, Seth. 2000. Animacy hierarchies and sentence processing. In Carnie, Andrew, Eithne Guilfoyle (eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages, 201-209. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Muralikrishnan, R., Matthias Schlesewsky, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2015. Animacy-based predictions in language comprehension are robust: contextual cues modulate but do not nullify them. Brain Research 1608. 108-137.10.1016/j.brainres.2014.11.046Search in Google Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth, Alice C. Harris, T. Florian Jaeger. 2015. Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 1009-1032.10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373Search in Google Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 1998. The Role of [+/-animate] in Inflection. In Fabri, Ray, Albert Ortmann, Teresa Parodi (eds.), Models of inflection, 60-84.Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110919745.60Search in Google Scholar
Øvrelid, Lilja. 2004. Disambiguation of syntactic functions in Norwegian: Modeling variation in word order interpretations conditioned by animacy and definiteness. In Karlsson, Fred (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. University of Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Paczynski Martin, Gina R. Kuperberg. 2011. Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 26 (9). 1402-1456.Search in Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., Simon Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36. 329-347.10.1017/S0140525X12001495Search in Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2012. Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking. In Lamers, Monique J.A., Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, word order, and prominence: Interacting Cues in Language Production and Comprehension, 65-90. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_4Search in Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools (2009). E-prime2 with the extensions for Tobii. https://www.pstnet.com/downloads/eet/EETVersion6.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Salverda, Anne Pier, David Kleinschmidt, Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2014. Immediate effects of anticipatory coarticulation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 71 (1). 145-163.10.1016/j.jml.2013.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Salverda, Anne Pier, Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2017. The visual world paradigm. In de Groot, Anette M.B., Peter Hagoort (eds.), Research Methods in Psycholinguistics, 89-110. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Sauppe, Sebastian. 2016. Verbal semantics drives early anticipatory eye movements during the comprehension of verb-initial sentences, Frontiers in Psychology 7.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00095Search in Google Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph, Barbara Hemforth, Lars Konieczny. 2000. Linking syntactic functions with thematic roles: Psych-verbs and the resolution of subject-object ambiguity. In Hemforth, Barbara, Lars Konieczny (eds.), German sentence processing, 95-135. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-9618-3_4Search in Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2008. Pronominal gender in English: A study of English varieties from a cross-linguistic perspective. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1988. Word order rules. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Snider, Neal, Annie Zaenen. 2006. Animacy and syntactic structure: fronted NPs in English. in Butt, Miriam, Mary Dalrymple, Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, 323-338. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Szewczyk Jakub M., Herbert Schriefers. 2011. Is animacy special? ERP correlates of semantic violations and animacy violations in sentence processing. Brain Research 1368. 208-22.10.1016/j.brainres.2010.10.070Search in Google Scholar
Szewczyk Jakub M., Herbert Schriefers. 2013. Prediction in language comprehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence comprehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 297-314.10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Michael J. Spivey-Knowlton, Kathleen M. Eberhard, Julie C. Sedivy. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information during spoken language comprehension. Science 268. 1632-1634.10.1126/science.7777863Search in Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1986. Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C., Michael K. Tanenhaus, Susan M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 285-318.10.1006/jmla.1994.1014Search in Google Scholar
Van Petten, Cyma, Barbara J. Luka. 2012. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs and ERP components. Journal of Psychophysiology 83. 176-190.Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139166799Search in Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Matsumi. 1999. Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slcs.46Search in Google Scholar
Young, Robert W., William Morgan. 1987. The Navajo language: A grammar and colloquial dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Fuyun, Elsi Kaiser, Elaine Andersen. 2012. Animacy effects in Chinese relative clause processing. Language And Cognitive Processes 27. 1489-1524.10.1080/01690965.2011.614423Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Peter de Swart et al., published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
