On the (non)universality of the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension: A sentence-processing study in Kaqchikel Maya

The processing load of sentences with three different word orders (VOS, VSO, and SVO) in Kaqchikel Maya was investigated using a sentence-plausibility judgment task. The results showed that VOS sentences were processed faster than VSO and SVO sentences. This supports the traditional analysis in Mayan linguistics that the syntactically determined basic word order is VOS in Kaqchikel, as in many other Mayan languages. More importantly, the result revealed that the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension observed in previous studies may not be universal; rather, the processing load in sentence comprehension is greatly affected by the syntactic nature of individual languages.

[1]  James R. Lindsley.  Producing simple utterances: How far ahead do we plan? , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  D. Slobin,et al.  Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections , 1982, Cognition.

[3]  J. Brody.  Some problems with the concept of basic word order , 1984 .

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

[5]  Hajime Hoji,et al.  Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese , 1985 .

[6]  J. K. Bock,et al.  Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation , 1985, Cognition.

[7]  D. Slobin.  The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition , 1987 .

[8]  J. Hawkins.  A parsing theory of word order universals , 1990 .

[9]  N. C. England.  Changes in Basic Word Order in Mayan Languages , 1991, International Journal of American Linguistics.

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

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

[12]  Hiroaki Tada,et al.  A/A-bar partition in derivation , 1993 .

[13]  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.

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

[15]  Rutz'ib'axik ri Kaqchikel , 1994 .

[16]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .

[17]  R. Mazuka,et al.  Japanese Sentence Processing , 1996 .

[18]  Irina A. Sekerina.  The syntax and processing of scrambling constructions in Russian , 1997 .

[19]  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 .

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

[21]  Mark C. Smith,et al.  High level processing scope in spoken sentence production , 1999, Cognition.

[22]  Markus Bader,et al.  Subject-Object Ambiguities in German Embedded Clauses: An Across-the-Board Comparison , 1999 .

[23]  Kathy Hirsh-Pasek,et al.  The Origins of Grammar: Evidence from Early Language Comprehension , 1999 .

[24]  Beatrice Primus,et al.  Cases and thematic roles , 1999 .

[25]  G. Waters,et al.  Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[26]  A. Marantz,et al.  Image, language, brain : papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium , 2000 .

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

[28]  Pedro Oscar García Matzar,et al.  Rukemik ri kaqchikel chi' : gramática kaqchikel , 2001 .

[29]  M. Just,et al.  The neural bases of sentence comprehension: a fMRI examination of syntactic and lexical processing. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[31]  中山 峰治,et al.  Sentence processing in East Asian languages , 2002 .

[32]  Robert Kluender,et al.  Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling , 2003, Brain and Language.

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

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

[35]  ALEC MARANTZ,et al.  Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language , 2005 .

[36]  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.

[37]  David Gil,et al.  The World Atlas of Language Structures , 2005 .

[38]  C. Padden,et al.  The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[40]  B. Stiebels.  Agent Focus in Mayan Languages , 2006 .

[41]  Walter E. Little,et al.  ¿La ütz awäch?: Introduction to Kaqchikel Maya Language , 2006 .

[42]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The role of the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the processing of unmarked transitivity , 2007, NeuroImage.

[43]  Jessica Coon,et al.  VOS as Predicate-fronting in Chol Mayan ∗ , 2007 .

[44]  Takahiro Soshi,et al.  A Topographical Study on the Event-related Potential Correlates of Scrambled Word Order in Japanese Complex Sentences , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[45]  Ryuta Kinno,et al.  Neural correlates of noncanonical syntactic processing revealed by a picture‐sentence matching task , 2008, Human brain mapping.

[46]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[47]  David Caplan,et al.  Task-dependent and task-independent neurovascular responses to syntactic processing , 2008, Cortex.

[48]  Holly P. Branigan,et al.  Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production , 2008 .

[49]  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.

[50]  Shigeru Sato,et al.  Scrambling effects on the processing of Japanese sentences: An fMRI study , 2009, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[51]  S. Skopeteas,et al.  The interaction between topicalization and structural constraints: Evidence from Yucatec Maya , 2009 .

[52]  P. Lewis.  Ethnologue : languages of the world , 2009 .

[53]  Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,et al.  The Role of Prominence Information in the Real-Time Comprehension of Transitive Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Approach , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[54]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[55]  Jessica Coon,et al.  VOS as predicate fronting in Chol , 2010 .

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

[57]  Yosef Grodzinsky,et al.  fMRI adaptation dissociates syntactic complexity dimensions , 2010, NeuroImage.

[58]  Gisbert Fanselow,et al.  Contextual Licensing of Marked OVS Word Order in German  , 2011, Linguistische Berichte (LB).

[59]  Omer Preminger.  Agreement as a fallible operation , 2011 .

[60]  M. Gell-Mann,et al.  The origin and evolution of word order , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[62]  Silvia P. Gennari,et al.  Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation , 2012, Cognitive Psychology.

[63]  Michael Meeuwis,et al.  Order of subject, object, and verb , 2013 .