Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: syntactic and processing effects in German

Bayer, Josef; Bader, Markus; Meng, Michael

doi:10.1016/s0024-3841(00)00041-3

Cited by 83 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A related pairwise , and between 1000 and 1500 ms at FC3 dative sentences (sentence types (3a) versus (3b)) (F [2,30]53.08, P50.064, e 50.93). Since no overall As visible in Figs.…”

Section: 12 Ambiguous Accusative Sentences Versus Pairwise Ranovasmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The initial nouns in (2a) Dat Acc (A critic can safely cheer musicians who have rehearsed a difficult opus) 2 As a matter of fact, the plural nouns in (1a), (1b), and (2b) are also legitimate representatives of nominative Case and may, therefore, serve as subjects. This ambiguity is already ruled out in favor of an object interpretation after the finite verb (modal) is received.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In (ii) this is not successful because [2]). If this is relevant for the parser, it follows that parsing economy although repair is transitive, the filler who cannot-due to selectional disfavors the dative against the accusative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel?

Hopf

Bader

Meng

et al. 2003

Cognitive Brain Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this ERP study we investigate the processes that occur in syntactically ambiguous German sentences at the point of disambiguation. Whereas most psycholinguistic theories agree on the view that processing difficulties arise when parsing preferences are disconfirmed (so-called garden-path effects), important differences exist with respect to theoretical assumptions about the parser's recovery from a misparse. A key distinction can be made between parsers that compute all alternative syntactic structures in parallel (parallel parsers) and parsers that compute only a single preferred analysis (serial parsers). To distinguish empirically between parallel and serial parsing models, we compare ERP responses to garden-path sentences with ERP responses to truly ungrammatical sentences. Garden-path sentences contain a temporary and ultimately curable ungrammaticality, whereas truly ungrammatical sentences remain so permanentlya difference which gives rise to different predictions in the two classes of parsing architectures. At the disambiguating word, ERPs in both sentence types show negative shifts of similar onset latency, amplitude, and scalp distribution in an initial time window between 300 and 500 ms. In a following time window (500-700 ms), the negative shift to garden-path sentences disappears at right central parietal sites, while it continues in permanently ungrammatical sentences. These data are taken as evidence for a strictly serial parser. The absence of a difference in the early time window indicates that temporary and permanent ungrammaticalities trigger the same kind of parsing responses. Later differences can be related to successful reanalysis in garden-path but not in ungrammatical sentences. Theme: Neural basis of behaviorTopic: Cognition

show abstract

“…A related pairwise , and between 1000 and 1500 ms at FC3 dative sentences (sentence types (3a) versus (3b)) (F [2,30]53.08, P50.064, e 50.93). Since no overall As visible in Figs.…”

Section: 12 Ambiguous Accusative Sentences Versus Pairwise Ranovasmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel?

Hopf

Bader

Meng

et al. 2003

Cognitive Brain Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bader and Meng (1999;cf. also Bader, Meng and Bayer, 2000;Bayer, Bader and Meng 2001) on the other hand relate case matching to number attraction. In their account, the head noun of an NP which does not bear a marked case may attract the case feature of a relative pronoun that it c-commands.…”

Section: Case Matchingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Case Matching and Conflicting Bindings Interference

Logacev

Vasishth

2011

Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similarity-based interference (SBI) has recently gained more attention in the domain of sentence processing (e.g. Gordon et al., 2007). In this paper we demonstrate that similarity can also have facilitative effects on processing, a finding that interference theories such as Gordon et al's cannot explain. We offer an explanation for such interference effects as well as the facilitative effects in terms of independently motivated assumptions about the structure of memory representations (Hommel, 1998; inter alia). An attractive aspect of this explanation of similarity-based interference and facilitation effects is that so-called case-matching phenomena can also be accounted for. To this end we present two experiments: In Experiment 1 we demonstrate that case matching can occur even with noncoreferent NPs, given a sufficient level of similarity. In Experiment 2 we show that case matching is really driven by abstract case proper as opposed to other properties canonically associated with it. In sum, we provide a unified explanation for interference, facilitation and case-matching effects. A broader implication of this account is that case ambiguities are not resolved immediately but rather the multiple representations are maintained in parallel---a mechanism that is clearly not compatible with serial parsing strategies.Acknowledgments We would like to thank Gisbert Fanselow for very helpful suggestions concern-

show abstract

“…KP (Case Phrase), headed by K(ase), is the highest functional head of the noun phrase bearing the selectional features of the syntactic category immediately above it. The exponent of K is overt case morphology (Bayer, Bader, and Meng 2001;Guasti 1993). Case assignment happens by case binding.…”

Section: Syntactic Ergativity Follows From the Properties Of The Absomentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic Ergativity

Polinsky

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter presents the phenomenon of syntactic ergativity (SE), defined as the grouping of the absolutive subject and absolutive object into a natural class, to the exclusion of the ergative argument, with respect to A′‐movement. Two families of approaches to SE can be distinguished: those which place the explanatory burden on the derivation of the absolutive, and those which invoke the properties of the ergative expression to explain SE. For the first family of approaches, which include explanations based on locality and A′‐movement for case, the exclusion of the ergative from A′‐movement is a side effect of satisfying Case‐licensing needs of the absolutive. In the second type of approach, the restriction on A′‐movement of the ergative follows either from criterial freezing or from the adpositional‐phrase nature of the ergative. The approaches converge on the notion that ergative is an inherent case, assigned either by a verbal head or by an adposition selected by a v head.

show abstract

Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: syntactic and processing effects in German

Cited by 83 publications

References 20 publications

Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel?

Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel?

Case Matching and Conflicting Bindings Interference

Syntactic Ergativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About