Differences in the Timing of Implausibility Detection for Recipient and Instrument Prepositional Phrases
dc.contributor.author | Blodgett, Allison | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Boland, Julie E. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-09-11T15:40:48Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-09-11T15:40:48Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2004-01 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Blodgett, Allison; Boland, Julie E.; (2004). "Differences in the Timing of Implausibility Detection for Recipient and Instrument Prepositional Phrases." Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33(1): 1-24. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/45106> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1573-6555 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0090-6905 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/45106 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15002169&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | We conducted two word-by-word reading experiments to investigate the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases (PPs). These PPs differ in thematic role, relative frequency, and possibly in argument status. The results showed a difference in the timing of garden path effects such that the detection of implausible dative recipients (which are clearly arguments) was delayed relative to the detection of implausible instruments (which may not be arguments). They also demonstrated that commitments to syntactic structure were made at the preposition for both dative and instrument PPs. While these results refute delay models of parsing (e.g., Britt, 1994) and syntax-first accounts of PP-attachment (e.g., Frazier, 1978; Frazier & Clifton, 1996), they support constraint-based lexicalist models that enable verb bias and plausibility information to compete (Garnsey, Pearlmutter, Myers, & Lotocky, 1997). | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 131818 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3115 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers; Plenum Publishing Corporation ; Springer Science+Business Media | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Psycholinguistics | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Plausibility | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Cognitive Psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Psycholinguistics | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Parsing | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Prepositional Phrase Attachment | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Sentence Comprehension | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Syntactic Ambiguity | en_US |
dc.title | Differences in the Timing of Implausibility Detection for Recipient and Instrument Prepositional Phrases | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Linguistics | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Humanities | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus | Ann Arbor | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 15002169 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45106/1/10936_2004_Article_477924.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000010512.39960.27 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Psycholinguistic Research | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.