Control in a Norwegian grammar maze

Abstract

Coreference processing of Control constructions and their pronoun-containing counterparts can be studied experimentally using priming or interference paradigms. We replicate findings in a priming study on non-finite Control constructions in Norwegian (Larsen & Johansson, 2020) and contrast them with their finite counterparts using interference effects in a grammatical maze (G-maze) design. We asked participants to read sentences word-by-word and to select the grammatically correct continuation from two options. When the ungrammatical option was a potential antecedent from within the sentence, we predicted interference, i.e., longer reaction times compared to an unrelated baseline. We observed a trend towards significant interference effects when a participant was presented with either of the potential noun phrase (NP) antecedents of PRO in competition with the infinitive marker (test position zero) during the processing of a Control sentence. This indicates reactivation of potential antecedents at the infinitive marker, and a reactivation position (PRO) near or at the infinitive marker. We also observed significant differences between Control constructions and their pronoun counterparts. A significant interference effect was recorded for Subject Pronoun constructions when either potential NP antecedent of the pronoun was presented in competition with the pronoun itself. A similar trend was recorded for Object Pronoun sentences.

Processing dissociations between raising and control in Brazilian Portuguese

“…devotada, 'devoted') might also be accessed as well. 42 This more diffuse activation could well result in a lower 40 As in the Norwegian sentences tested by Larsen & Johansson (2020), the infinitive marker is clearly in T in English (however, Larsen & Johansson (2022) consider the possibility that the infinitive marker å is instead interpreted as a complementizer). In verb-raising languages such as Brazilian Portuguese, finite verbs are generally assumed to raise to T, and Galves (1994) suggests that infinitives raise to T in BP as well.…”

“…They, therefore, suggest that the parser may be positing PRO not in the embedded subject position (prior to the infinitive marker) but in its theta position (following the infinitive marker). (A follow-up study by the same authors is worth mentioning here as well: Larsen & Johansson (2022) looked at the processing of PRO using a grammar maze design, finding evidence to the effect that PRO is indeed processed differently from overt pronouns. 12 )…”