Differences in the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases
Differences in the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases
复制标题
DOI：
10.1023/b:jopr.0000010512.39960.27
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Boland, JE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blodgett, A;Boland, JE
我们进行了两个逐词阅读实验，以探讨接受者和工具介词短语（PP）的不可信性检测的时间。这些PP在主位作用、相对频率和论元地位上可能存在差异。结果表明，花园小径效应的时间差异，如检测不可信与格受体（这显然是参数）延迟相对于检测不可信的工具（这可能不是参数）。研究还表明，与格PP和工具PP的句法结构承诺都是在介词上做出的。虽然这些结果反驳了语法分析的延迟模型（e。例如，在一个实施例中，布里特，1994年）和句法优先帐户的PP-附件（e。例如，在一个实施例中，弗雷泽，1978年; Frazier &克利夫顿，1996），他们支持基于约束的词汇模型，使动词偏见和可解释性信息竞争（Garnsey，Pearlmutter，Myers，& Lotocky，1997）。
We conducted two word-by-word reading experiments to investigate the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases (PPs). These PPs differ in thematic role, relative frequency, and possibly in argument status. The results showed a difference in the timing of garden path effects such that the detection of implausible dative recipients (which are clearly arguments) was delayed relative to the detection of implausible instruments (which may not be arguments). They also demonstrated that commitments to syntactic structure were made at the preposition for both dative and instrument PPs. While these results refute delay models of parsing (e. g., Britt, 1994) and syntax-first accounts of PP-attachment (e. g., Frazier, 1978; Frazier & Clifton, 1996), they support constraint-based lexicalist models that enable verb bias and plausibility information to compete (Garnsey, Pearlmutter, Myers, & Lotocky, 1997).