Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension

Linguistics and Language Compass

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 631-646

  Tutunjian, Damon ^a   Boland, Julie E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65349185695     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1749818X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00071.x     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Abney, S. 1989. A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18.129-44.
2. Altmann, G. T. M., and Y. Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73.247-64.
3. Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. Elements of grammar, ed. by L. Haegeman, 73-137. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
4. Baker, M., K. Johnson, and I. Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20.219-51.
5. Boland, J. E. 1997. The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 12.423-84.
6. Boland, J. E. 2005. Visual arguments. Cognition 95.237-74.
7. Boland, J. E., and A. Blodgett. 2006. Argument status and PP-attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35.385-403.
8. Boland, J. E., and H. Boehm-Jernigan. 1998. Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 394.684-719.
9. Boland, J. E., M. K. Tanenhaus, and S. M. Garnsey. 1990. Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 29.413-32.
10. Boland, J. E., M. K. Tanenhaus, S. M. Garnsey, and G. N. Carlson. 1995. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 34.774-806.
11. Borer, H. 2005. Structuring sense, volumes I & II. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. Britt, M. A. 1994. The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 33.251-83.
13. Carlson, G. N., and M. K. Tanenhaus. 1988. Thematic roles and language comprehension. Syntax and semantics 21, ed. by W. Wilkins, 263-300. New York, NY: Academic Press.
14. Chambers, C. G., M. K. Tanenhaus, and J. S. Magnuson. 2004. Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30.687-96.
15. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
16. Clifton, C., Jr, S. R. Speer, and S. P. Abney. 1991. Parsing arguments: phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language 30 251-71.
17. Collins, C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8 2 81-120.
18. Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67 547-19.
19. Ferreira, F., and J. M. Henderson. 1990. Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16 555-68.
20. Ferreira, F., and K. K. McClure. 1997. Parsing of garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 12 273-306.
21. Ferretti, T. R., K. McRae, and A. Hatherell. 2001. Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language 44 516-47.
22. Frazier, L. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
23. Frazier, L. 1987. Theories of syntactic processing. Modularity in Knowledge representation and natural language processing, ed. by J. L. Garfield, 291-307. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Frazier, L., and C. Clifton, Jr. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Garnsey, S. M., N. J. Perlmutter, E. Myers, and M. A. Lotocky. 1997. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37 58-93.
26. Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from building 20: A festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by K. Hale and J. Keyser, 53-108. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Hanna, J. E., M. J. Spivey-Knowlton, and M. K. Tanenhaus. 1996. Integrating discourse and local constraints in resolving lexical thematic ambiguities. Proceedings of the sixteenth annual cognitive science society, ed. by G. W. Cottrell, 266-71. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Jaeggli, O. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17.587-622.
32. Kamide, Y., G. T. M. Altmann, and S. Haywood. 2003. Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49.133-56.
33. Kaplan, R. M., and J. Bresnan. 1982. Lexical functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The mental representation of grammar relations, ed. by J. Bresnan, 173-281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Kennison, S. M. 1999. Processing agentive 'by'-phrases in complex event and nonevent nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 30.502-8.
35. Kennison, S. M. 2002. Comprehending noun phrase arguments and adjuncts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31.65-81.
36. Knoeferle, P., B. Habets, M. W. Crocker, and T. F. Munte. 2007. Visual scenes trigger immediate syntactic reanalysis: Evidence from ERPs during situated spoken comprehension. Cerebral Cortex 18.789-95.
37. Knoeferle, P., M. W. Crocker, C. Scheepers, and M. J. Pickering. 2005. The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role assignment: Evidence from eyemovements in depicted events. Cognition 95.95-127.
38. Koenig, J.-P., G. Mauner, and B. Bienvenue. 2003. Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89.67-103.
39. Konieczny, L., B. Hemforth, C. Scheepers, and G. Strube. 1997. The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes 12.307-48.
40. Lasnik, H. 1988. Subjects and the theta-criterion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.1-17.
41. Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization, research surveys in linguistics series. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Liversedge, S. P., M. J. Pickering, H. P. Branigan, and R. P. G. van Gompel. 1998. Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 24.461-75.
44. MacDonald, M. C., N. J. Pearlmutter, and M. S. Seidenberg. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101.676-703.
45. Manning, C. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. Probabilistic linguistics, ed. by R. Bod, J. Hay, and S. Jannedy, 289-314. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Mauner, G., and J.-P. Koenig. 1999. Lexical encoding of participant information. Brain and Language 68.178-84.
47. Mauner, G., and J.-P. Koenig. 2000. Linguistic vs. conceptual sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 43.110-34.
48. Mauner, G., M. K. Tanenhaus, and G. N. Carlson. 1995. Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 34.357-82.
49. McElree, B. 1993. The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 32.536-71.
50. McElree, B., and T. Griffith. 1998. Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 24.432-60.
51. Mitchell, D. C. 1989. Verb guidance and other lexical effects in parsing. Special Issue: Parsing and Interpretation. Language and Cognitive Processes.43-4.
52. Reinhart, T. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28.229-90.
53. Schütze, C. T. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. Papers on language processing and acquisition, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 26, ed. by C. T. Schütze, J. B. Ganger, and K. Broihier, 95-151. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Schütze, C. T., and E. Gibson. 1999. Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 40.409-31.
55. Shapiro, L. P., N. Nagel, and B. A. Levine. 1993. Preferences for a verb's complements and their use in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 32.96-114.
56. Spivey, M. J., M. K. Tanenhaus, K. M. Eberhard, and J. C. Sedivy. 2002. Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology 45.447-81.
57. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and J. C. Sedivy. 1995. Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition 55.227-67.
58. Stevenson, S. 1998. Parsing as incremental restructuring. Reanalysis in sentence processing, ed. by J. D. Fodor and F. Ferreira, 327-63. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
59. Tanenhaus, M. K., J. C. Trueswell, and S. M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic in Use of 5thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33.285-318.
60. Tanenhaus, M. K., M. J. Spivey-Knowlton, K. M. Eberhard, and J. C. Sedivy. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268.1632-4.
61. Taraban, R., and J. L. McClelland. 1988. Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language 27.597-632.
62. Traxler, M. J. 2008. Lexically independent priming in on-line sentence comprehension. Psycholinguistic Bulletin & Review 15.149-55.
63. Traxler, M. J., and K. M. Tooley. 2007. Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing. Brain Research 1146.59-74.
64. Trueswell, J. C., and A. E. Kim. 1998. How to prune a garden-path by nipping it in the bud: Fast-priming of verb argument structures. Journal of Memory and Language 39.102-23.
65. Van Valin, R., and R. Lapolla. 1997. Syntax: Form, meaning, and function. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
66. Yamashita, H. 1995. Verb argument information used in a pro-drop language: An experimental study in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24.333-47.