Show simple item record

Differences in the Timing of Implausibility Detection for Recipient and Instrument Prepositional Phrases

dc.contributor.authorBlodgett, Allisonen_US
dc.contributor.authorBoland, Julie E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-11T15:40:48Z
dc.date.available2006-09-11T15:40:48Z
dc.date.issued2004-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationBlodgett, 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.issn1573-6555en_US
dc.identifier.issn0090-6905en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/45106
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15002169&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractWe 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.extent131818 bytes
dc.format.extent3115 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherKluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers; Plenum Publishing Corporation ; Springer Science+Business Mediaen_US
dc.subject.otherPsycholinguisticsen_US
dc.subject.otherPlausibilityen_US
dc.subject.otherPsychologyen_US
dc.subject.otherCognitive Psychologyen_US
dc.subject.otherPsycholinguisticsen_US
dc.subject.otherParsingen_US
dc.subject.otherPrepositional Phrase Attachmenten_US
dc.subject.otherSentence Comprehensionen_US
dc.subject.otherSyntactic Ambiguityen_US
dc.titleDifferences in the Timing of Implausibility Detection for Recipient and Instrument Prepositional Phrasesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPsychologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelLinguisticsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanitiesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.identifier.pmid15002169en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45106/1/10936_2004_Article_477924.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000010512.39960.27en_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Psycholinguistic Researchen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

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.