Heavy NP shift is the parser's last resort: Evidence from eye movements.

Two eye movement experiments explored the roles of verbal subcategorization possibilities and transitivity biases in the processing of heavy NP shift sentences in which the verb's direct object appears to the right of a post-verbal phrase. In Experiment 1, participants read sentences in which a prepositional phrase immediately followed the verb, which was either obligatorily transitive or had a high transitivity bias (e.g., Jack praised/watched from the stands his daughter's attempt to shoot a basket). Experiment 2 compared unshifted sentences to sentences in which an adverb intervened between the verb and its object, and obligatorily transitive verbs to optionally transitive verbs with widely varying transitivity biases. In both experiments, evidence of processing difficulty appeared on the material that intervened between the verb and its object when the verb was obligatorily transitive, and on the shifted direct object when the verb was optionally transitive, regardless of transitivity bias. We conclude that the parser adopts the heavy NP shift analysis only when it is forced to by the grammar, which we interpret in terms of a preference for immediate incremental interpretation.

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

[2]  Richard S. Kayne Overt vs. Covert Movements , 1998 .

[3]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies , 2003 .

[4]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Linguistic Structure in Language Processing , 1988 .

[7]  M. Masson Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[8]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

[10]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Natural language parsing: How can grammars help parsers? , 1985 .

[11]  C. Clifton,et al.  Comprehending Sentences with Long-Distance Dependencies , 1989 .

[12]  A. Weinberg,et al.  Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language , 2004 .

[13]  S. Kennison Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence comprehension , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Processing local and unbounded dependencies: A unified account , 1994 .

[15]  M. Crocker Computational Psycholinguistics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Language , 1995 .

[16]  Michael Rochemont,et al.  Deriving Dependent Right Adjuncts in English , 1997 .

[17]  Thomas Wasow End-Weight from the Speaker's Perspective , 1997 .

[18]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Regression-contingent analyses: A reply to Altmann , 1994 .

[19]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[20]  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.

[21]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  C. Phillips,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[23]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Ambiguity Resolution in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Frequency-Based Accounts , 2000 .

[24]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[26]  Sam Featherston,et al.  Empty Categories in Sentence Processing , 2001 .

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

[28]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  Katherine S. Binder,et al.  The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution , 2001 .

[30]  K Rayner,et al.  Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression-contingent analyses , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[31]  J. Kimball Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

[32]  Gerry T. M. Altmann,et al.  Regression-contingent analyses of eye movements during sentence processing: Reply to Rayner and Sereno , 1994 .

[33]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The syntactic positive shift (sps) as an erp measure of syntactic processing , 1993 .

[34]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies:An Eye-Tracking Study , 1996 .

[35]  P. O'Seaghdha,et al.  Phrasal Ordering Constraints in Sentence Production: Phrase Length and Verb Disposition in Heavy-NP Shift , 1998 .

[36]  R. Burchfield Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. By W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kučera with the assistance of Andrew W. Mackie. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1982. x + 561 , 1985 .

[37]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms , 1984 .

[38]  Marica de Vincenzi,et al.  Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian , 1991 .

[39]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language , 1979 .

[40]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser , 1989 .

[41]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[42]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[43]  W. Nelson Francis,et al.  FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH USAGE: LEXICON AND GRAMMAR , 1983 .

[44]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[46]  A. Garnham,et al.  Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context , 1992 .

[47]  Susanne Gahl,et al.  Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[48]  A Pollatsek,et al.  On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: a suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  Laurie A. Stowe,et al.  Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location , 1986 .

[50]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.