Processing noncanonical verbs

As outlined above, deviations from prototypical transitivity (defined via the se-mantic properties assigned to the arguments by the verb) are crosslinguistically reflected in noncanonical argument linking and case marking patterns. Not sur-prisingly, these deviations from prototypical transitivity also affect sentence pro-cessing and lead to increases in propro-cessing cost, when compared to the propro-cessing of canonical transitive sentences. In the following, I will present some examples for the influence of noncanonical argument linking patterns or noncanonical case

marking patterns on sentence comprehension.

In English, non-prototypical transitivity is mainly reflected in non-standard argument linking patterns. Verbs with unusal argument-linking patterns like object-experiencer verbs have been shown to cause higher processing costs than standard transitive verbs. Cupples (2002) investigated the comprehension of ac-tive and passive sentences with theme-experiencer verbs (liketo amuse), experiencer-theme verbs (like to cherish) and action verbs (liketo clean) in a series of experi-ments. In their first experiment, they measured plausibility ratings and the time to perform the ratings of implausible sentences and plausible filler sentences with all three kinds of verbs. (Implausible sentences with theme-experiencer verbs:

The messenger convinced the diagram / The diagram was convinced by the mes-senger; experiencer-theme verbs: The tunnel liked the youngster / The youngster was liked by the tunnel and action verbs: The signature refused the supplier / The supplier was refused by the signature). Cupples found that active sentences with theme-experiencer verbs had longer rating times than active sentences contain-ing the other verbs. Passive sentences with theme-experiencer verbs had higher accuracy in the plausibility ratings than passive sentences containing other verb classes. She did not find differences between action verbs and experiencer-theme verbs. In a second experiment, Cupples investigated the comprehension of active and passive sentences containing theme-experiencer and experiencer-theme verbs with self-paced reading times. (theme-experiencer verbs: The remark encour-aged the dancer / The dancer was encourencour-aged by the remark; experiencer-theme verbs: The suspect imagined the threat / The threat was imagined by the sus-pect; implausible fillers: The doctor harassed the stethoscope / The landlord was noticed by the leak / The chair expected). The results of the self-paced reading task showed that active sentences with theme-experiencer verbs caused greater processing difficulty than those with experiencer-theme verbs, leading to longer reading times on the postverbal word. Cupples concludes that theme-experiencer verbs differ syntactically from action and experiencer-theme verbs, and that this difference influences processing. Bader et al. (2000) investigated the compre-hension of German transitive sentences with verbs marking canonical nom-acc or noncanonical nom-dat case (active dative verbs). In two experiments, they elicited grammaticality judgments of transitive sentences that were locally

am-1. Introduction

biguous with respect to case marking. The critical sentences had object-subject word order (Wessen Anwalt.(dat)/(acc) denkst du, half/informierte der.nom Lehrer.(nom), “Whose lawyer do you think did the teacher help/inform?”), while control sentences had subject-object word order (Wessen Anwalt.(nom) denkst du, half dem.dat Lehrer.(dat) / informierte den.acc Lehrer.(acc), “Whose lawyer do you think helped the.datteacher / informed the.accteacher?”). Their results indicate that word order did not affect grammaticality judgments and re-action times for accusative assigning verbs. In the dative-assigning condition, they found longer reaction times and a lower percentage of correct judgments for object-subject word order compared to subject-object word order. They interpret their findings as indicating stronger garden paths in the dative assigining condi-tion, caused by the restructuring of the syntactic representation of the sentence, and by lexical reaccess to check for dative morphology on the object NPs.

The processing of dative instead of accusative verbs also has been shown to affect ERP signals. Hopf et al. (1998) investigated the comprehension of German verb-final relative sentences with dative- or accusative-assigning verbs. They compared between two conditions that were ambiguous for accusative or da-tive case marking until the final verb (Dirigenten.dat/acc), die ein schwieriges Werk einstudiert haben, kann ein Kritiker ruhig applaudieren(dative-assigning) / umjubeln(accusative-assigning); “Conductors.dat/acc who have rehearsed a difficult opus a critic can safely applaud / cheer”) and a third condition that was unambiguously marked for dative case on the first NP (Musikern.dat, die ein schwieriges Werk einstudiert haben, kann ein Kritiker ruhig applaudieren(dative-assigning); “Musicians.dat who have rehearsed a difficult opus a critic can safely applaud”). They found that the ambiguous dative sentences showed a broad negative shift in the ERP signal about 300 ms after the presentation of the criti-cal verb, compared to accusative ambiguous and dative unambiguous conditions.

Hopf et al. attributed this negative shift to the restructuring of the syntactic rep-resentation of the sentence that became necessary when the dative-assigning verb had been encountered. Unlike true syntactic reanalysis (that would have been expected to result in a P600 component rather than a negativity), they conclude that the syntactic representation can be successfully rearranged by assigning da-tive case. The authors argue that this process needs lexical reaccess to check for

dative morphology on the object NP. They interpret their findings as an N400 reflecting lexical reaccess.

While dative-assigning verbs are processed differently from accusative-assign-ing verbs, dative-assignaccusative-assign-ing verbs can be further distaccusative-assign-inguished between the ones assigning nom-dat and dat-nom word orders. Dative-assigning verbs with dif-ferent unmarked word orders have difdif-ferent influences on sentence processing.

Bornkessel et al. (2004) investigated the effects of word order variation on transi-tive sentences with accusatransi-tive- and datransi-tive assigning verbs. The found that in the accusative condition, object initial sentences produced a P600 (SO: dass Maria S¨angerinnen besucht, ..., “that Maria singers.pl visits.3.sg, ..”; OS: dass Maria S¨angerinnen besuchen, “that Maria singers.pl visit.3.pl.”). In the dative condi-tion, (SO:dass Maria S¨angerinnen folgt, ..., “that Maria singers.plfollows.3.sg, ..”; OS: dass Maria S¨angerinnen folgen, “that Maria singers.pl follow.3.pl.”), they found an N400 component to object initial orders instead. In a second ex-periment, they investigated the influence of word order on the processing of dative assigning verbs in more detail, comparing active nom-dat and initial-object ex-periencer dat-nom verbs (SO: dass Maria S¨angerinnen gef¨allt, ..., “that Maria singers.pl pleases.3.sg”; OS: dass Maria S¨angerinnen gefallen,..., “that Maria singers.pl please.pl,...”). They found that the distribution of the negativities associated with object initial word orders depends on whether the dative as-signing verbs have unmarked word orders dat-nom or nom-dat (active dative verbs). The authors suggest that while the reanalysis of case marking and of phrase structure both cause higher processing costs, dative object experiencer verbs may activate a dative-nominative word order pattern. This could reduce the processing cost for object-subject word orders with these verbs, compared to object-subject word orders for accusative or active dative assigning verbs. They conclude that the revision of case marking is reflected in an N400 component, whereas the revision of phrase structure is marked by a P600.

In summary, the literature indicates that dative-assigning verbs cause higher processing costs than accusative-assigning verbs in the comprehension of transi-tive sentences. Although case marking is a morphosyntactic phenomenon, revi-sions of case marking are reflected in N400 rather than P600 components tradi-tionally associated with syntactic revisions. The difference between the

process-1. Introduction

ing of accusative- and dative-assigning verbs are explained as reflecting additional processing cost caused by a restructuring of the syntactic representation and by lexical reaccess to check the object NPs for dative morphology (Bader et al., 2000;

Hopf et al., 1998) or by a principled difference between revisions of phrase struc-ture and case marking (Bornkessel et al., 2004). Furthermore, there is evidence that ‘active’ dative verbs with unmarkednom-datword order are processed dif-ferently from verbs with unmarkeddat-nomword order. The explanations cited here are based on the syntactic and lexical properties of dative-assigning verbs, but not on their non-prototypically transitive semantics.

Deviations from the verb-based definition of prototypical transitivity are re-flected in sentence processing, just like deviations from the animacy-based defini-tion. In the following section, I will conclude the Introduction to my dissertation by elaborating why both deviations should interact in sentence comprehension.

I will then propose the hypothesis that was tested in the experiments, presented in the remainder of the thesis.