Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:47:49.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Contrast in the Local Licensing of Scrambling in German: Evidence from Online Comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2006

Ina Bornkessel  and
Matthias Schlesewsky
Ina Bornkessel
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig
Matthias Schlesewsky
Affiliation:
University of Marburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the role of contrast in the local licensing of scrambling in on-line language comprehension in German using event-related brain potentials (ERP). Although contrastive readings give rise to a higher acceptability of scrambled word orders, they do not lead to an attenuation of the processing difficulties observed at the position of the scrambled object itself. Thus, similar to previous findings on givenness, contrast leads to global but not local licensing of scrambled structures, a finding that speaks against an immediate interaction of all relevant information types. The pattern is reversed when the scrambled object induces a corrective focus reading. Here scrambling does not give rise to increased local processing cost, but global acceptability decreases. These findings suggest that corrective focus can override local syntactic requirements on the basis of its extraordinarily high communicative saliency.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 1 - 43
Copyright
© 2006 Society for Germanic Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altmann Gerry T. M., K. Y. van Nice, Alan Garnham, and Judith-Ann Henstra. 1998. Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 459– 484.Google Scholar
Bader Markus. 1996. Sprachverstehen. Syntax und Prosodie beim Lesen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Bader Markus, and Michael Meng. 1999. Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28. 121– 143.Google Scholar
Blutner Reinhard. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17. 189– 216.Google Scholar
Bornkessel Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky, and Angela D. Friederici. 2002. Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order. Cognition 85. B21– B30.Google Scholar
Bornkessel Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky, and Angela D. Friederici. 2003. Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter-versus intra-sentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29. 269– 298.Google Scholar
Büring Daniel. 1994. Topic. Focus and natural language processing vol. 2. Semantics, ed. by Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt, 271– 280. Heidelberg: IBM Germany.
Büring Daniel. 2001. Let's phrase it! Focus, word order, and prosodic phrasing in German double object constructions. Competition in syntax, ed. by Gereon Müller and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 69– 105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Büring Daniel, and Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo. 2001. Focus related word order variation without the NSR: A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis. Syntax and Semantics at Santa Cruz 3, 341– 58.Google Scholar
Chomsky Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89– 155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Coles Michael G. H., and Michael D. Rugg. 1995. Event-related brain potentials: An introduction. Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related brain potentials and cognition, ed. by Michael D. Rugg and Michael G. H. Coles, 1– 26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dik Simon. 1991. Functional grammar. Linguistic theory and grammatical description, ed. by Flip G. Droste and John E. Joseph. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 247– 274.
É Kiss Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245– 273.Google Scholar
Fanselow Gisbert. 2001. Features, _-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 405– 437.Google Scholar
Fanselow Gisbert. 2003. Free constituent order: A minimalist interface account. Folia Linguistica 37. 191– 231.Google Scholar
Fiebach Christian J., Matthias Schlesewsky, and Angela D. Friederici. 2002. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 250– 272.Google Scholar
Frazier Lyn. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Frazier Lyn. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. Attention and Performance, vol. 12. The psychology of reading, ed. by Max Coltheart. Hove: Erlbaum, 559– 586.
Frazier Lyn, and Keith Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14. 178– 210.Google Scholar
Frey Werner. Über die syntaktische Position der Satztopiks im Deutschen. Unpublished manuscript, ZAS, Berlin.
Friederici Angela D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 78– 84.Google Scholar
Friederici Angela D., Matthias Schlesewsky, and Christian J. Fiebach. 2003. Wh-movement versus scrambling: The brain makes a difference. Word order and scrambling, ed. by Simin Karimi, 325– 344. Oxford: Blackwell.
Garnsey Susan M. 1993. Event-related brain potentials in the study of language: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 337– 356.Google Scholar
Haider Hubert, and Inger Rosengren. 1998. Scrambling. (Sprache und Pragmatik, 49.) Lund: Germanistisches Institut.
Haider Hubert. 2002. Mittelfeld phenomena. The syntax companion, ed. by Henk van Riemsdijk and Martin Everaert, case #64. Available electronically at: http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/syncom.
Haider Hubert, and Inger Rosengren. 2003. Scrambling: Nontriggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 203– 267.Google Scholar
Halliday Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199– 244.Google Scholar
Heck Fabian. 2000. Tiefenoptimierung: Deutsche Wortstellung als wettbewerbsgesteuerte Basisgenerierung. Linguistische Berichte 184. 441– 468.Google Scholar
Hill Robin L., and Wayne Murray. 2000. Commas and spaces: Effects of punctuation on eye movements and sentence parsing. Reading as a perceptual process, ed. by Allan Kennedy, Ralph Radach, Dieter Heller, and Joél Pynte, 565– 589. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hruska Claudia, and Kai Alter. 2004. Prosody in dialogues and single sentences: How prosody can influence speech perception. Language context and cognition, vol. 1. Information structure: Theoretical and empirical aspects, ed. by Anita Steube, 211– 226. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Jackendoff Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jakobs Joachim. 1988. Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung und Grammatik. Intonationsforschungen. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 200.), ed. by Hans Altmann. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Jakobs Joachim. 1997. I-Topikalisierung. Linguistische Berichte 168. 91– 133.Google Scholar
Johnson Shaun M., Mara Breen, Charles Clifton, Jr., and Joanna Morris Floral. 2003. ERP investigations of prosodic and semantic focus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement.
Krifka Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 75– 112.Google Scholar
Kutas Marta, and Steven A. Hillyard. 1980. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207. 203– 205.Google Scholar
Kutas Marta, and Cyma Van Petten. 1994. Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Morton A. Gernsbacher, 83– 143. New York: Academic Press.
Lenerz Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
MacDonald Maryellen C., Neal J. Pearlmutter, and Mark S. Seidenberg. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101. 676– 703.Google Scholar
Matzke Mike, H. Mai, W. Nager, Jascha Rüsseler, and Thomas F. Münte. 2002. The costs of freedom: An ERP study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology 113. 844– 852.Google Scholar
Meinunger André., 1995. Discourse dependent DP (de-)placement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Potsdam.
Meng Michael, Markus Bader, and Josef Bayer. 1999. Die Verarbeitung von Subjekt-Objekt Ambiguitäten im Kontext. Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaften, ed. by Ipke Wachsmuth and B. Jung, 244– 249. St. Augustin: Infix Verlag.
Mitchell Don C. 1994. Sentence parsing. Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Morton Ann Gernsbacher, 375– 409. New York: Academic Press.
Müller Gereon. 1999. Optimality, markedness and word order in German. Linguistics 37. 777– 818.Google Scholar
Neeleman Ad. 1994. Complex predicates. Utrecht: Led.
Pechmann Thomas, Hans Uszkoreit, J. Engelkamp, and Dieter Zerbst. 1994. Word order in the German middle field: Linguistic theory and psycholinguistic evidence. (= Computational Linguistics at the University of the Saarland, 43.)
Pili Diana. 2000. On A and A' dislocation in the left periphery. Doctoral dissertation, University of Potsdam.
Prince Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1997. Optimality: From neural networks to universal grammar. Science 275. 1604– 1610.Google Scholar
Rizzi Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of Grammar. Handbook in generative syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281– 337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSUWPL, vol. 49. Papers in semantics, ed. by Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol, 91– 136. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
Rösler Frank, Thomas Pechmann, Judith Streb, Brigitte Röder, and Erwin Hennighausen. 1998. Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 150– 176.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky Matthias, Ina Bornkessel, and Stefan Frisch. 2003. The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German. Brain and Language 86. 116– 128.Google Scholar
Steinhauer Karsten. 2003. Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation. Brain and Language 86. 142– 164.Google Scholar
Umbach Car. 2004. On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 21. 155– 175.Google Scholar
van Hoof Hanneke. 2003. The rise in the rise-fall contour: Does it evoke a contrastive topic or a contrastive focus? Linguistics 41. 515– 563.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and constituent order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.