Display options
Cite
Omaki A, Lau EF, Davidson White I, et al. Hyper-active gap filling. Front Psychol. 2015;6:384doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384.
Omaki, A., Lau, E. F., Davidson White, I., Dakan, M. L., Apple, A., & Phillips, C. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in psychology, 6384. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384
Omaki, Akira, et al. "Hyper-active gap filling." Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 (2015): 384. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384
Omaki A, Lau EF, Davidson White I, Dakan ML, Apple A, Phillips C. Hyper-active gap filling. Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 10;6:384. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25914658; PMCID: PMC4392588.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 10;6:384. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384. eCollection 2015.

Hyper-active gap filling.

Frontiers in psychology

Akira Omaki, Ellen F Lau, Imogen Davidson White, Myles L Dakan, Aaron Apple, Colin Phillips

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA.
  2. Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland, College Park MD, USA.

PMID: 25914658 PMCID: PMC4392588 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384

Abstract

Much work has demonstrated that speakers of verb-final languages are able to construct rich syntactic representations in advance of verb information. This may reflect general architectural properties of the language processor, or it may only reflect a language-specific adaptation to the demands of verb-finality. The present study addresses this issue by examining whether speakers of a verb-medial language (English) wait to consult verb transitivity information before constructing filler-gap dependencies, where internal arguments are fronted and hence precede the verb. This configuration makes it possible to investigate whether the parser actively makes representational commitments on the gap position before verb transitivity information becomes available. A key prediction of the view that rich pre-verbal structure building is a general architectural property is that speakers of verb-medial languages should predictively construct dependencies in advance of verb transitivity information, and therefore that disruption should be observed when the verb has intransitive subcategorization frames that are incompatible with the predicted structure. In three reading experiments (self-paced and eye-tracking) that manipulated verb transitivity, we found evidence for reading disruption when the verb was intransitive, although no such reading difficulty was observed when the critical verb was embedded inside a syntactic island structure, which blocks filler-gap dependency completion. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that in English, as in verb-final languages, information from preverbal noun phrases is sufficient to trigger active dependency completion without having access to verb transitivity information.

Keywords: active gap filling; eye-tracking; filler-gap dependency; island; plausibility mismatch effects; prediction; verb transitivity

References

  1. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):443-67 - PubMed
  2. Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77 - PubMed
  3. Brain Lang. 2003 Dec;87(3):345-54 - PubMed
  4. Cognition. 1995 Jun;55(3):227-67 - PubMed
  5. Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):425-30 - PubMed
  6. Int J Psychophysiol. 2005 Aug;57(2):115-28 - PubMed
  7. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Jan;29(1):128-39 - PubMed
  8. J Psycholinguist Res. 1989 Jan;18(1):5-19 - PubMed
  9. Nat Neurosci. 2005 Aug;8(8):1117-21 - PubMed
  10. J Psycholinguist Res. 2004 Jan;33(1):1-24 - PubMed
  11. Brain Lang. 2013 Dec;127(3):497-509 - PubMed
  12. Brain Lang. 2006 Jul;98(1):74-88 - PubMed
  13. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1983 Mar;112(1):1-36 - PubMed
  14. Cognition. 2010 Jul;116(1):71-86 - PubMed
  15. Brain. 2000 Dec;123 Pt 12:2552-66 - PubMed
  16. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Nov;29(6):627-45 - PubMed
  17. Mem Cognit. 1990 Jul;18(4):380-93 - PubMed
  18. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Nov;27(6):1401-10 - PubMed
  19. J Mem Lang. 2013 Feb 1;68(2):199-222 - PubMed
  20. J Psycholinguist Res. 2002 Sep;31(5):531-71 - PubMed
  21. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Dec 1;4(12):463-470 - PubMed
  22. J Psycholinguist Res. 1989 Jan;18(1):51-60 - PubMed
  23. Cognition. 1998 Aug;68(1):1-76 - PubMed
  24. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(7):1274-304 - PubMed
  25. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1982 Jun;111(2):228-38 - PubMed
  26. J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):null - PubMed
  27. Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Aug;26(4):445-76; discussion 477-526 - PubMed
  28. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May;35(3):806-14 - PubMed
  29. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Mar;29(2):141-54 - PubMed
  30. Neuroimage. 2006 May 1;30(4):1383-400 - PubMed
  31. J Psycholinguist Res. 1997 Mar;26(2):265-73 - PubMed
  32. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Mar;22(3):407-28 - PubMed
  33. Cogn Psychol. 2004 Nov;49(3):238-99 - PubMed
  34. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 May;33(3):550-69 - PubMed
  35. Language (Baltim). 2010 Jun;86(2):366-415 - PubMed
  36. Cogn Sci. 2005 May 6;29(3):375-419 - PubMed
  37. J Psycholinguist Res. 2003 Mar;32(2):101-23 - PubMed
  38. Cognition. 2002 Sep;85(2):B21-30 - PubMed
  39. Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703 - PubMed
  40. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Mar;32(2):425-36 - PubMed
  41. Brain Res. 2006 Apr 21;1084(1):89-103 - PubMed
  42. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 06;9(6):e99199 - PubMed
  43. J Psycholinguist Res. 2004 Jan;33(1):51-73 - PubMed
  44. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 8;103(32):12203-8 - PubMed
  45. Psychol Bull. 1998 Nov;124(3):372-422 - PubMed
  46. J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):434-446 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support