The Processing Cost of Scrambling and Topicalization in Japanese

This article presents two reading comprehension experiments, using the sentence correctness decision task, that explore the causes of processing cost of Japanese sentences with SNOMOACCV, STOPOACCV, OACCSNOMV, and OTOPSNOMV word orders. The first experiment was conducted in order to see if either syntax or frequency plays a significant role in the processing of these sentences. The results of the first experiment have shown that both the structure-building process and frequency directly affect processing load. We observed that there was no difference in processing cost between SNOMOACCV and STOPOACCV, both of which are easier to process than OACCSNOMV, which is in turn easier to process than OTOPSNOMV: SNOMOACCV = STOPOACCV < OACCSNOMV < OTOPSNOMV. This result is the mixture of the two positions. Specifically, the structure building cost of STOPOACCV was neutralized by its high frequency. The aim of the second experiment was to investigate the interaction between syntactic structure, frequency, and information structure. The results showed that the processing cost of OACCSNOMV was facilitated by given-new ordering, but SNOMOACCV, STOPOACCV, and OTOPSNOMV were not. Thus, we can conclude that information structure also influences processing cost. In addition, the distribution of informational effects can be accounted for by Kuno's (1987, p. 212) Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule Violations: SNOMOACCV and STOPOACCV are unmarked/canonical options, and as such are not penalized even when they violate given-new ordering, OACCSNOMV is penalized when it does not maintain given-new ordering because it is a marked/non-canonical option, and OTOPSNOMV is penalized even when it obeys given-new ordering possibly because more specific contexts are needed. Another reason for the increased processing cost of OTOPSNOMV is a garden path effect; upon encountering OTOP of OTOPSNOMV, the parser preferentially (mis)interpreted it as STOP due to a subject-before-object preference. The revision of the interpretation may be the cause of the high processing cost observed in OTOPSNOMV.

[1]  S. Kuroda.  Movement of Noun Phrases in Japanese , 1992 .

[2]  Brigitte Röder,et al.  Parsing of Sentences in a Language with Varying Word Order: Word-by-Word Variations of Processing Demands Are Revealed by Event-Related Brain Potentials ☆ ☆☆ ★ , 1998 .

[3]  S. Miyagawa,et al.  The EPP, scrambling, and WH-in-situ , 2001 .

[4]  Masatoshi Koizumi,et al.  On the (non)universality of the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension: A sentence-processing study in Kaqchikel Maya , 2014 .

[5]  E. T. Miyamoto.  Sources of difficulty in processing scrambling in Japanese , 2002 .

[6]  E. Gibson.  The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

[7]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence , 2007 .

[8]  K. Sakuma.  The structure of the Japanese language , 1951 .

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

[10]  Satoshi Imamura,et al.  The Influence of Givenness and Heaviness on OSV in Japanese , 2014, PACLIC.

[11]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[12]  Shigeru Miyagawa.  Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis , 1989 .

[13]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Syntactic processing: Evidence from dutch , 1987 .

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

[15]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Discourse structure and relative clause processing , 2008, Memory & cognition.

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

[17]  立石 浩一,et al.  The syntax of "subjects" , 1994 .

[18]  Irina A. Sekerina.  Scrambling and Processing: Dependencies, Complexity, and Constraints , 2008 .

[19]  N. Snider,et al.  More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases , 2010 .

[20]  Shu-ing Shyu.  Topic and Focus , 2014 .

[21]  Hajime Hoji,et al.  Weak crossover and move α in Japanese , 1983 .

[22]  Jon Andoni Duñabeitia,et al.  Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque , 2010, Cognition.

[23]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses , 2009, Cognition.

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

[25]  A. Rodríguez-Fornells,et al.  Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque , 2009, Brain and Language.

[26]  J. Hawkins.  Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[27]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Word Order in Sentence Processing: An Experimental Study of Verb Placement in German , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[28]  Hiromu Sakai,et al.  Priority Information Used for the Processing of Japanese Sentences: Thematic Roles, Case Particles or Grammatical Functions? , 2005, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[29]  M. Saito.  Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications , 1985 .

[30]  Shigeru Miyagawa,et al.  Why Agree ? Why Move ? Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages , 2009 .

[31]  Masatoshi Koizumi,et al.  Psycholinguistic Evidence for the VP-Internal Subject Position in Japanese , 2010, Linguistic Inquiry.

[32]  Edson T. Miyamoto,et al.  Filler-Gap Dependencies in the Processing of Scrambling in Japanese , 2004 .

[33]  Douglas Roland,et al.  Discourse Expectations and Relative Clause Processing. , 2012 .

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

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

[36]  J. Trueswell,et al.  The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language , 2004, Cognition.

[37]  Judith Aissen.  Topic and focus in Mayan , 1992 .

[38]  L. Frazier,et al.  Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in dutch , 1989 .

[39]  Shigeru Miyagawa,et al.  A‐Movement Scrambling and Options without Optionality , 2008 .

[40]  久野 暲.  Functional syntax : anaphora, discourse and empathy , 1987 .

[41]  Satoshi Imamura,et al.  The Effects of Givenness and Heaviness on VP-internal Scrambling and VP-external Scrambling in Japanese , 2015 .

[42]  Gregory Ward,et al.  Information Structure and Syntactic Structure , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[43]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension , 2011 .

[44]  Adrian Staub,et al.  Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses , 2010, Cognition.

[45]  Hiromu Sakai,et al.  Effects of Word Order Alternation on the Sentence Processing of Sinhalese Written and Spoken Forms , 2011 .

[46]  Hideki Kishimoto,et al.  Binding of Indeterminate Pronouns and Clause Structure in Japanese , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[47]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[48]  J. Trueswell.  THE ROLE OF LEXICAL FREQUENCY IN SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION , 1996 .

[49]  Laura Winther Balling,et al.  Givenness, complexity, and the Danish dative alternation , 2013, Memory & Cognition.

[50]  柴谷 方良,et al.  The languages of Japan , 2009 .

[51]  Mamoru Saito,et al.  A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains , 2003 .