Ambiguity in case marking does not affect the description of transitive events in German: evidence from sentence production and eye-tracking

Schlenter, Judith; Esaulova, Yulia; Dolscheid, Sarah; Penke, Martina

doi:10.1080/23273798.2022.2026419

Cited by 3 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The design of the study was adopted from Schlenter et al (2022). All visual scenes were preceded by a picture of the patient in the same position and with the same orientation as in the scene.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For another participant, there was no record in the results file, probably because s/he closed the browser too early, so only audio files had been transferred. 2017a, 2017b; Schlenter et al, 2022). Since we were interested in evaluating the number of patient-initial utterances in relation to the visual properties position and orientation, we adopted the methodology of referential cueing to avoid floor effects.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since we were interested in evaluating the number of patient-initial utterances in relation to the visual properties position and orientation, we adopted the methodology of referential cueing to avoid floor effects. Referential patient-cueing has been shown to effectively increase the proportion of patient-initial utterances in scene description tasks in comparison to no-cueing or other cueing conditions (Esaulova et al, 2020;Myachykov et al, 2018;Schlenter et al, 2022).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( Although all three structures are viable in German, previous production studies (Esaulova et al, 2019(Esaulova et al, , 2020Esaulova, Dolscheid, Reuters et al, 2021;Sauppe, 2017aSauppe, , 2017bSchlenter et al, 2022) have consistently shown that German speakers have a strong preference for canonical active SVO sentences when describing transitive event scenes. If they produce a non-canonical structure, German speakers produce passives rather than active OVS sentences (for more discussion, see Schlenter et al, 2022).…”

Section: Main Experiment: Scene Description Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also excluded utterances with sentence-initial corrections if these altered the syntactic structure of the sentence as well as sentences that were incomplete and where relevant information for coding was missing. We did not exclude utterances in which participants incorrectly identified a character as female and thus used a feminine noun because previous research did not report any influence of ambiguity in case marking (Schlenter et al, 2022). Since the other character was referred to with a masculine noun and thus unambiguously marked as subject (nominative) or object (accusative), we were still able to code these responses.…”

Section: Data Analysis Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

(How) Visual properties affect the perception and description of transitive events

Schlenter¹,

Penke²

2022

Glossa Psycholinguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a non-verbal aesthetic judgement task and a pre-registered production task, we tested how the orientation of the patient relative to the agent in a visual scene affects the perception and description of the depicted transitive event. Previous research has shown that a visual property like the position of the patient relative to the agent can affect speakers’ verbalization of events. Here, we investigated whether orientation constitutes another factor besides position that affects scene description. While speakers of German displayed an overall preference for scenes in which agent and patient faced each other, these scenes needed more time for sentence planning than the same scenes that showed the patient looking in the same direction and thus away from the agent. Moreover, we elicited more patient-initial sentences for face-to-face scenes than for same-direction scenes. The increase in patient-initial sentences was comparable to the increase in patient-initial sentences for scenes with left-positioned patients as compared to right-positioned patients. Based on our findings, we argue that manipulations of both position and orientation can change the prominence of the patient. The more prominent the patient (facing the agent, being placed to the left of the agent), the more likely speakers are to choose the patient as the sentence-initial subject. Hence, subtle changes of visual properties may affect not only how speakers perceive an event but also how they describe an event. Our findings are of relevance for a range of tasks that use visual materials.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Experiment: Scene Description Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Analysis Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

(How) Visual properties affect the perception and description of transitive events

Schlenter¹,

Penke²

2022

Glossa Psycholinguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Grammatical Encoding for Speech Production

Wheeldon

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the production of spoken sentences, the linearisation of a 'thought' is accomplished via the process of grammatical encoding, i.e., the building of a hierarchical syntactic frame that fixes the linear order of lexical concepts. While much research has demonstrated the independence of lexical and syntactic representations, exactly what is represented remains a matter of dispute. Moreover, theories differ in terms of whether words or syntax drive grammatical encoding. This debate is also central to theories of the time-course of grammatical encoding. Speaking is usually a rapid process in which articulation begins before an utterance has been entirely planned. Current theories of grammatical encoding make different claims about the scope of grammatical encoding prior to utterance onset, and the degree to which planning scope is determined by linguistic structure or by cognitive factors. The authors review current theories of grammatical encoding and evaluate them in light of relevant empirical evidence. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

show abstract

Attention vs. accessibility: the role of different cue types for non-canonical sentence production in German

Dolscheid,

Penke

2023

Front. Lang. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere is evidence of close links between the allocation of attention and the production of language. For instance, while speakers commonly produce active sentences when they describe an event with an agent acting on a patient, this preference can shift once the patient is in the spotlight of attention (e.g., by means of a brief attentional cue preceding the patient). In this case, speakers are more prone to produce non-canonical sentences such as passives. Critically, however, whereas attentional cueing is particularly effective for speakers of English, it has proven less effective for speakers of languages like German that differ from English in terms of case-marking and word order flexibility. This observation begs the question of how German speakers respond to alternative cue types that differ in the conceptual and lexical information they provide. In the current study, we address this question by directly comparing the effect of different cue types on sentence production.MethodsGerman-speaking participants were asked to describe transitive event scenes while their eye gaze was monitored via eye tracking. Prior to scene onset, participants saw one of three different cue types: a short attentional cue preceding the patient character, a long attentional cue, or a centrally presented pre-view of the patient (referential cue).Results and discussionOur results demonstrate that different cue types led to differences in speakers' propensity to produce passives. Critically, referential cueing was more effective than attentional cueing in increasing German speakers' rate of passive production, contra to what has previously been reported for English speakers. At the same time, the cues resulted in different viewing behavior, demonstrating that an increase in visual attention does not necessarily go hand in hand with an increase in passivization. Consequently, our findings show that a direct link between the allocation of attention and speakers' structural choices may not always be licensed.

show abstract

Ambiguity in case marking does not affect the description of transitive events in German: evidence from sentence production and eye-tracking

Cited by 3 publications

References 43 publications

(How) Visual properties affect the perception and description of transitive events

(How) Visual properties affect the perception and description of transitive events

Grammatical Encoding for Speech Production

Attention vs. accessibility: the role of different cue types for non-canonical sentence production in German

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About