Syntactic Structures in Motion: Investigating Word Order Variations in Verb-final (Korean) and Verb-initial (Tongan) Languages

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2024 May 9

PMID 38721313

Authors

Katsuo Tamaoka

Shaoyun Yu

Jingyi Zhang

Yuko Otsuka

Hyunjung Lim

Masatoshi Koizumi

Rinus G Verdonschot

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This study explored sentence processing in two typologically distinct languages: Korean, a verb-final language, and Tongan, a verb-initial language. The first experiment revealed that in Korean, sentences arranged in the scrambled OSV (Object, Subject, Verb) order were processed more slowly than those in the canonical SOV order, highlighting a scrambling effect. It also found that sentences with subject topicalization in the SOV order were processed as swiftly as those in the canonical form, whereas sentences with object topicalization in the OSV order were processed with speeds and accuracy comparable to scrambled sentences. However, since topicalization and scrambling in Korean use the same OSV order, independently distinguishing the effects of topicalization is challenging. In contrast, Tongan allows for a clear separation of word orders for topicalization and scrambling, facilitating an independent evaluation of topicalization effects. The second experiment, employing a maze task, confirmed that Tongan's canonical VSO order was processed more efficiently than the VOS scrambled order, thereby verifying a scrambling effect. The third experiment investigated the effects of both scrambling and topicalization in Tongan, finding that the canonical VSO order was processed most efficiently in terms of speed and accuracy, unlike the VOS scrambled and SVO topicalized orders. Notably, the OVS object-topicalized order was processed as efficiently as the VSO canonical order, while the SVO subject-topicalized order was slower than VSO but faster than VOS. By independently assessing the effects of topicalization apart from scrambling, this study demonstrates that both subject and object topicalization in Tongan facilitate sentence processing, contradicting the predictions based on movement-based anticipation.

References

Imamura S, Sato Y, Koizumi M . The Processing Cost of Scrambling and Topicalization in Japanese. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:531. PMC: 4835679. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00531. View

Wagers M, Phillips C . Going the distance: Memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013; 67(7):1274-304. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.858363. View

Tamaoka K, Sakai H, Kawahara J, Miyaoka Y, Lim H, Koizumi M . Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions?. J Psycholinguist Res. 2005; 34(3):281-332. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-005-3641-6. View

Witzel J, Witzel N . Incremental Sentence Processing in Japanese: A Maze Investigation into Scrambled and Control Sentences. J Psycholinguist Res. 2015; 45(3):475-505. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-015-9356-4. View

Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M . The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychol Rev. 2006; 113(4):787-821. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787. View

Kwon N, Ong D, Chen H, Zhang A . The Role of Animacy and Structural Information in Relative Clause Attachment: Evidence From Chinese. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:1576. PMC: 6650783. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01576. View

Ness T, Meltzer-Asscher A . Working Memory in the Processing of Long-Distance Dependencies: Interference and Filler Maintenance. J Psycholinguist Res. 2017; 46(6):1353-1365. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-017-9499-6. View

SATTERTHWAITE F . An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics. 2010; 2(6):110-4. View

Staub A . Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition. 2010; 116(1):71-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.002. View

10.

Just M, Carpenter P, KELLER T, Eddy W, Thulborn K . Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science. 1996; 274(5284):114-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5284.114. View

11.

Vasishth S, Chen Z, Li Q, Guo G . Processing Chinese relative clauses: evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e77006. PMC: 3788747. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077006. View

12.

Forster K, Guerrera C, Elliot L . The maze task: measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(1):163-171. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.1.163. View

13.

Tamaoka K, Asano M, Miyaoka Y, Yokosawa K . Pre- and post-head processing for single- and double-scrambled sentences of a head-final language as measured by the eye tracking method. J Psycholinguist Res. 2013; 43(2):167-85. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-013-9244-8. View

14.

Caplan D, Alpert N, Waters G . Effects of syntactic structure and propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow. J Cogn Neurosci. 1998; 10(4):541-52. DOI: 10.1162/089892998562843. View

15.

Chen H . Effects of reading span and textual coherence on rapid-sequential reading. Mem Cognit. 1986; 14(3):202-8. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197693. View

16.

Hsiao F, Gibson E . Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition. 2003; 90(1):3-27. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00124-0. View

17.

Gennari S, MacDonald M . Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. J Mem Lang. 2009; 58(4):161-187. PMC: 2735264. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.004. View

18.

Ueno M, Kluender R . Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling. Brain Lang. 2003; 86(2):243-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00543-6. View