Does Structural Complexity Necessarily Imply Processing Difficulty?

Our goal is to establish a link between the time needed to plan a sentence containing an embedded clause and the structure of this sentence. Contrary to a traditional monolithic conception of subordination, three types of embeddings were considered, depending on their degree of syntactic integration: subcategorized, modifier and pseudo-embedded clauses. We hypothesized that in the case of subcategorization, fewer pauses should occur between the matrix and the subordinate clause since the latter is required by the lexical properties of verbs. By contrast, pseudo-embedded clauses are the less integrated. Hence, they should exhibit planning characteristics similar to the ones of simple sentences, the matrix clause and the subordinate clauses being planned in two steps. Twenty texts produced by French speaking adults were recorded. Pauses were characterized according to their duration and position. Globally, both predictions were confirmed. We conclude that supposedly complex sentences are not necessarily difficult to process.

[1]  D. Tannen Spoken and written language : exploring orality and literacy , 1984 .

[2]  D. Tannen Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse , 1984 .

[3]  V. M. Holmes A crosslinguistic comparison of the production of utterances in discourse , 1995, Cognition.

[4]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[5]  F. Goldman-Eisler Pauses, Clauses, Sentences , 1972, Language and speech.

[6]  M. Just,et al.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory , 1991 .

[7]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[8]  N. Alpert,et al.  Localization of Syntactic Comprehension by Positron Emission Tomography , 1996, Brain and Language.

[9]  J. Fodor,et al.  Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity , 1967 .

[10]  M. Halliday Spoken and Written Language , 1989 .

[11]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Natural Language Parsing , 2005 .

[12]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Natural language parsing: Syntactic complexity , 1985 .

[13]  David Caplan,et al.  Effects of Syntactic Structure and Propositional Number on Patterns of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  M. Poole,et al.  A Comparison of Oral and Written Code Elaboration , 1976, Language and speech.

[15]  Denis Creissels,et al.  Syntaxe générale : une introduction typologique , 2006 .

[16]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition, 2nd Edition , 2000, Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence.

[17]  Joanna Blake,et al.  The Relationship between Memory Span and Measures of Imitative and Spontaneous Language Complexity in Preschool Children , 1994 .

[18]  C. Osgood,et al.  Hesitation Phenomena in Spontaneous English Speech , 1959 .

[19]  Roy C. O'Donnell,et al.  Syntactic Differences Between Speech and Writing , 1974 .

[20]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition , 2000 .

[21]  E. Gibson,et al.  The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty , 2000 .

[22]  P. Hawkins The Syntactic Location of Hesitation Pauses , 1971, Language and speech.

[23]  V. M. Holmes,et al.  Planning units and syntax in sentence production , 1978, Cognition.

[24]  M. Just,et al.  Brain Activation Modulated by Sentence Comprehension , 1996, Science.

[25]  Marily Ford,et al.  A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences , 1983 .