Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Information in Predictive Processing: Cross-linguistic Evidence from German and English

Overview

Journal J Psycholinguist Res

Publisher Springer

Specialty Psychology

Date 2003 Mar 22

PMID 12647562

Citations 58

Authors

Yuki Kamide

Christoph Scheepers

Gerry T M Altmann

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Two visual-world eyetracking experiments were conducted to investigate whether, how, and when syntactic and semantic constraints are integrated and used to predict properties of subsequent input. Experiment 1 contrasted auditory German constructions such as, "The hare-nominative eats ... (the cabbage-acc)" versus "The hare-accusative eats ... (the fox-nom)," presented with a picture containing a hare, fox, cabbage, and distractor. We found that the probabilities of the eye movements to the cabbage and fox before the onset of NP2 were modulated by the case-marking of NP1, indicating that the case-marking (syntactic) information and verbs' semantic constraints are integrated rapidly enough to predict the most plausible NP2 in the scene. Using English versions of the some stimuli in active/passive voice (Experiment 2), we replicated the same effect, but at a slightly earlier position in the sentence. We discuss the discrepancies in the two Germanic languages in terms of the ease of integrating information across, or within, constituents.

Citing Articles

Mental simulation of the factual and the illusory in negation processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements on a blank screen.

Vanek N, Matic Skoric A, Kosutar S, Matejka S, Stone K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2844.

PMID: 38310189 PMC: 10838274. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53353-0.

Turkish-German heritage speakers' predictive use of case: webcam-based vs. in-lab eye-tracking.

Ozsoy O, Cicek B, Ozal Z, Gagarina N, Sekerina I Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1155585.

PMID: 37539000 PMC: 10395335. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1155585.

Online eye tracking and real-time sentence processing: On opportunities and efficacy for capturing psycholinguistic effects of different magnitudes and diversity.

Prystauka Y, Altmann G, Rothman J Behav Res Methods. 2023; 56(4):3504-3522.

PMID: 37528290 PMC: 11133053. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-023-02176-4.

The Agent Preference in Visual Event Apprehension.

Isasi-Isasmendi A, Andrews C, Flecken M, Laka I, Daum M, Meyer M Open Mind (Camb). 2023; 7:240-282.

PMID: 37416075 PMC: 10320828. DOI: 10.1162/opmi_a_00083.

Integration of visual context in early and late bilingual language processing: evidence from eye-tracking.

Abashidze D, Schmidt A, Trofimovich P, Mercier J Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1113688.

PMID: 37179896 PMC: 10171561. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1113688.

References

Hoffman J, Subramaniam B . The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Percept Psychophys. 1995; 57(6):787-95. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206794. View

Trueswell J, Sekerina I, Hill N, Logrip M . The kindergarten-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition. 1999; 73(2):89-134. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00032-3. View

Eberhard K, Sedivy J, Tanenhaus M . Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. J Psycholinguist Res. 1995; 24(6):409-36. DOI: 10.1007/BF02143160. View

Altmann G, Kamide Y . Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition. 1999; 73(3):247-64. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00059-1. View

Tanenhaus M, Magnuson J, Dahan D, Chambers C . Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. J Psycholinguist Res. 2001; 29(6):557-80. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026464108329. View

Rayner K, MCCONKIE G, Ehrlich S . Eye movements and integrating information across fixations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1978; 4(4):529-44. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.4.4.529. View

Remington R . Attention and saccadic eye movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1980; 6(4):726-44. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.6.4.726. View

Kowler E, Anderson E, Dosher B, BLASER E . The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Res. 1995; 35(13):1897-916. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)00279-u. View

Trueswell J, Tanenhaus M, Kello C . Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993; 19(3):528-53. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.19.3.528. View

10.

Marslen-Wilson W . Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science. 1975; 189(4198):226-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4198.226. View

11.

Tanenhaus M, Eberhard K, Sedivy J . Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science. 1995; 268(5217):1632-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.7777863. View

12.

Koh S . The resolution of the dative NP ambiguity in Korean. J Psycholinguist Res. 1997; 26(2):265-73. DOI: 10.1023/a:1025021918198. View

13.

MacDonald M, Pearlmutter N, Seidenberg M . The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected]. Psychol Rev. 1994; 101(4):676-703. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676. View

14.

Deubel H, Schneider W . Saccade target selection and object recognition: evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Res. 1996; 36(12):1827-37. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4. View

15.

Altmann G, Steedman M . Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition. 1988; 30(3):191-238. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0. View

16.

Sedivy J, Tanenhaus M, Chambers C, Carlson G . Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition. 1999; 71(2):109-47. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00025-6. View