Do We Need a Distinction between Arguments and Adjuncts? Evidence from Psycholinguistic Studies of Comprehension

Within both psycholinguistic theories of parsing and formal theories of syntax, a distinction between arguments and adjuncts is central to some theories, while minimized or denied by others. Even for theories that deem the argument/ adjunct distinction important, the exact nature of the distinction has been difficult to characterize. In this article, we review the psycholinguistic evidence for an argument/adjunct distinction, discuss how argument status can best be defined in the light of such evidence, and consider the implications for how grammatical knowledge is represented and accessed in the human mind.

[1]  Allison Blodgett,et al.  Argument Status and PP-Attachment , 2006, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[2]  Julie E. Boland,et al.  Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment , 1998 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[4]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[5]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  Lexical Functional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation , 2004 .

[7]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints , 1995, Cognition.

[8]  Steven P. Abney,et al.  Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. , 1991 .

[9]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: evidence from eye-movements in depicted events , 2005, Cognition.

[10]  J. Henderson,et al.  Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  M. A. Britt,et al.  The Interaction of Referential Ambiguity and Argument Structure in the Parsing of Prepositional Phrases , 1994 .

[12]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Probabilistic Syntax , 2002 .

[13]  Brandon R. Schrand.  Works Cited , 1991, Bach's Cycle, Mozart's Arrow.

[14]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Linguistic vs. Conceptual Sources of Implicit Agents in Sentence Comprehension , 2000 .

[15]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing , 1990 .

[16]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Shelia M Kenniso.  Comprehending noun phrase arguments and adjuncts. , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[19]  Thomas F Münte,et al.  Cerebral Cortex Advance Access published July 21, 2007 Visual Scenes Trigger Immediate Syntactic Reanalysis: Evidence from ERPs during Situated Spoken Comprehension , 2022 .

[20]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  Parsing of Garden-path Sentences with Reciprocal Verbs , 1997 .

[21]  Beth Levin,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation , 1993 .

[22]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Thematic roles and language comprehension , 1988 .

[23]  Carson T. Schütze.  PP attachment and argumenthood , 1995 .

[24]  B. McElree,et al.  Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. , 1998 .

[25]  Julie E. Boland.  The Relationship Between Syntactic and Semantic Processes in Sentence Comprehension. , 1997 .

[26]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing , 1995 .

[27]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense , 2004 .

[28]  B. McElree,et al.  The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension , 1993 .

[29]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb Argument Structure in Parsing and Interpretation: Evidence from wh-Questions , 1995 .

[30]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[31]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Lexical Encoding of Event Participant Information , 1999, Brain and Language.

[32]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[33]  J. Trueswell,et al.  How to Prune a Garden Path by Nipping It in the Bud: Fast Priming of Verb Argument Structure , 1998 .

[34]  Shelia M. Kennison.  Processing Agentive By-Phrases in Complex Event and Nonevent Nominals , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[35]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Argumenthood and English Prepositional Phrase Attachment , 1999 .

[36]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  ON COMPREHENDING SENTENCES: SYNTACTIC PARSING STRATEGIES. , 1979 .

[37]  Ken Hale,et al.  On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations , 1993 .

[38]  Hiroko Yamashita,et al.  Verb argument information used in a prodrop language: An experimental study in Japanese , 1995 .

[39]  Steven Abney,et al.  A computational model of human parsing , 1989 .

[40]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[41]  Beth Levin,et al.  Argument Realization , 2005 .

[42]  M. Baker,et al.  Passive Arguments Raised , 2018, Diachronic and Comparative Syntax.

[43]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  Subjects and the θ-criterion , 1988 .

[44]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  The Theta System – an overview , 2003 .

[45]  Kristen M. Tooley,et al.  Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing , 2007, Brain Research.

[46]  Don C. Mitchell,et al.  Verb guidance and other lexical effects in parsing , 1989 .

[47]  Chris Collins,et al.  A smuggling approach to the passive in english , 2005 .

[48]  益子 真由美.  Argument Structure , 1993, The Lexicon.

[49]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure , 1997 .

[50]  Lewis P. Shapiro,et al.  Preferences for a Verb′s Complements and Their Use in Sentence Processing , 1993 .

[51]  Holly P. Branigan,et al.  Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context : The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives , 1998 .

[52]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure , 2002 .

[53]  Lars Konieczny,et al.  The Role of Lexical Heads in Parsing: Evidence from German , 1997 .

[54]  Hagit Borer,et al.  Structuring Sense Volume 2: The Normal Course of Events , 2005 .

[55]  Matthew J Traxler,et al.  Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[56]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[57]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Integrating discourse and local constraints in resolving lexical thematic ambiguities , 1996 .

[58]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  Parsing as Incremental Restructuring , 1998 .

[59]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Arguments for adjuncts , 2003, Cognition.

[60]  K. McRae,et al.  Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts , 2001 .

[61]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

[62]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Constituent Attachment and Thematic Role Assignment in Sentence Processing: Influences of Content-Based Expectations , 1988 .