Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 194-209

  Brown, Meredith ^a   Savova, Virginia ^b   Gibson, Edward ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dative alternation; Discourse; Information structure; Sentence comprehension; Word order

Indexed keywords

EID: 81955162875     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412.
2. Baayen R.H., Piepenbrock R., Gulikers L. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM): Linguistic data consortium 1995, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [Computer software]. R package, version 0.999375-26.
4. Birner B.J., Ward G. Information status and non-canonical word order in English 1998, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
5. Birner B.J., Ward G. Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 2009, 3:1167-1187.
6. Branigan H.P., Pickering M.J., Tanaka M. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 2008, 118:172-189.
7. Bresnan J. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base 2007, 77-96. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. S. Featherston, W. Sternefeld (Eds.).
8. Bresnan J., Cueni A., Nikitina T., Baayen H. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation 2007, 69-94. Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, Amsterdam. G. Boume, I. Kraemer, J. Zwarts (Eds.).
9. Clark H.H., Haviland S.E. Comprehension and the given-new contract. Discourse production and comprehension 1977, 1-40. Ablex, Norwood. R.O. Freedle (Ed.).
10. Clifton C., Frazier L. Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory & Cognition 2004, 32:886-895.
11. Collins P. The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics 1995, 33:35-49.
12. Fedorenko, E., & Levy, R. (2007). Information structure and word order in Russian sentence comprehension. Poster presented at the 20th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, La Jolla, CA.
13. Firbas J. Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1966, 2:239-256.
14. Frank S.L. Surprisal-based comparison between a symbolic and a connectionist model of sentence processing. Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society 2009, 1139-1144. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. N.A. Taatgen, H. van Rijn (Eds.).
15. Frank S.L., Bod R. Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science 2011, 22:829-834.
16. Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (in press). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language & Cognitive Processes.
17. Givon T. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction 1984, Vol. 1. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
18. Gordon P.C., Grosz B.J., Gilliom L.A. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science 1993, 17:311-347.
19. Gundel, J. (1974). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.
20. Halliday M.A.K. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 1967, 3:199-244.
21. Haspelmath M. Ditransitive constructions: Towards a new role and reference grammar account?. Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface 2008, 75-100. Benjamins, Amsterdam. R.D. Van Valin (Ed.).
22. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 1980, 87:329-354.
23. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A., Woolley J.D. Paradigms and processing in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1982, 111:228-238.
24. Kaiser E., Trueswell J.C. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 2004, 94:113-147.
25. Lambrecht K. Information structure and sentence form 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Marks L.E. Judgments of grammaticalness of some English sentences and semi-sentences. The American Journal of Psychology 1967, 80:196-204.
27. McDonald S.A., Shillcock R.C. Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vision Research 2003, 43:1735-1751.
28. Newport E.L., Aslin R.N. Innately constrained learning: Blending old and new approaches to language acquisition. Proceedings of the 24th annual boston university conference on language development 2000, Cascadilla, Somerville, MA. S.C. Howell, S.A. Fish, T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.).
29. Prince, E. F. (1999). How not to mark topics: 'Topicalization' in English and Yiddish. Ms, University of Pennsylvania.
30. R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org.
31. Rayner K., Duffy S.A. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 1986, 14:191-201.
32. Tabor W., Galantucci B., Richardson D. Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 50:335-370.
33. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1993, 19:528-553.
34. Vallduví E., Vilkuna M. On Rheme and Kontrast. The limits of syntax 1998, 79-106. Academic Press, New York. P. Culicover, L. McNally (Eds.).
35. Van Valin R.D. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface 2005, Cambridge University Press.
36. Willits J.A., Sussman R.S., Amato M.S. Event knowledge vs. verb knowledge. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society 2008, 2227-2232. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. B.C. Love, K. McRae, V.M. Sloutsky (Eds.).