Animacy or Case Marker Order?: Priority Information for Online Sentence Comprehension in a Head-Final Language

It is well known that case marker information and animacy information are incrementally used to comprehend sentences in head-final languages. However, it is still unclear how these two kinds of information are processed when they are in competition in a sentence's surface expression. The current study used sentences conveying the potentiality of some event (henceforth, potential sentences) in the Japanese language with theoretically canonical word order (dative–nominative/animate–inanimate order) and with scrambled word order (nominative–dative/inanimate–animate order). In Japanese, nominative–first case order and animate–inanimate animacy order are preferred to their reversed patterns in simplex sentences. Hence, in these potential sentences, case information and animacy information are in competition. The experiment consisted of a self-paced reading task testing two conditions (that is, canonical and scrambled potential sentences). Forty-five native speakers of Japanese participated. In our results, the canonical potential sentences showed a scrambling cost at the second argument position (the nominative argument). This result indicates that the theoretically scrambled case marker order (nominative–dative) is processed as a mentally canonical case marker order, suggesting that case information is used preferentially over animacy information when the two are in competition. The implications of our findings are discussed with regard to incremental simplex sentence comprehension models for head-final languages.

[1]  Cathy J. Price,et al.  Neuronal Activation for Semantically Reversible Sentences , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Satoru Yokoyama,et al.  Use of Semantic Information to Interpret Thematic Information for Real-Time Sentence Comprehension in an SOV Language , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  Edson T Miyamoto,et al.  Reanalysis of Clause Boundaries in Japanese as a Constraint-Driven Process , 2003, Language and speech.

[4]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension , 2004 .

[5]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension , 2008, Brain Research Reviews.

[6]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. , 2006, Psychological review.

[7]  Shigeru Sato,et al.  Is Broca's area involved in the processing of passive sentences? An event-related fMRI study , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  Peter Herriot,et al.  The comprehension of active and passive sentences as a function of pragmatic expectations , 1969 .

[9]  Yuki Kamide,et al.  Incremental Pre-Head Attachment in Japanese Parsing. , 1999 .

[10]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[12]  Edson T Miyamoto,et al.  Case Markers as Clause Boundary Inducers in Japanese , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[13]  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.

[14]  Allen R. Braun,et al.  Neural Aspects of Sentence Comprehension: Syntactic Complexity, Reversibility, and Reanalysis , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

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

[16]  D. Slobin Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood , 1966 .

[17]  Masaya Yoshida,et al.  Incremental Processing of Coreference and Binding in Japanese , 2009 .

[18]  Satoru Yokoyama,et al.  Neuro-physiological evidence of linguistic empathy processing in the human brain: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study , 2009, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[19]  Shigeru Sato,et al.  Cortical activation in the processing of passive sentences in L1 and L2: An fMRI study , 2006, NeuroImage.

[20]  Edson T. Miyamoto,et al.  Unscrambling Some Misconceptions , 2005 .

[21]  J. Woolley,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  Masatoshi Koizumi,et al.  On the nature of the “dative” particle ni in Japanese , 1995 .

[23]  Masatoshi Koizumi,et al.  Cognitive Processing of Japanese Sentences with Ditransitive Verbs , 2004 .

[24]  Edson T. Miyamoto,et al.  フォーラム Unscrambling Some Misconceptions:A Comment on Koizumi and Tamaoka(2004) , 2005 .

[25]  Susan Kemper,et al.  On the Role of Semantic Constraints in Sentence Comprehension , 1979 .

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

[27]  Hideki Maki,et al.  Mechanism of Case Processing in the Brain: An fMRI Study , 2012, PloS one.