Prominence in Spanish sentence comprehension: an eye-tracking study

References

• Arnaiz, A. R. (1998). An overview of the main word order characteristics of Romance. In A. Siewierska (Ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe (Vol. 20, pp. 47–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110812206.47
   Google Scholar
• Ashby, J., Rayner, K., & Clifton, C. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: Differential effects of frequency and predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 1065–1086. doi: 10.1080/02724980443000476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using r. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
   Google Scholar
• Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and linking in language comprehension: Evidence from German (Vol. 34). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-4344-9
   Google Scholar
• Bakovic, E. (1998). Optimality and inversion in Spanish. In P. Barbosa (Ed.), Is the best good enough?: Optimality and competition in syntax (pp. 35–58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364–390. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014, June). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. ArXiv e-prints.
   Google Scholar
• Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 291–352. doi: 10.1007/BF00133902
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beretta, A., Schmitt, C., Halliwell, J., Munn, A., Cuetos, F., & Kim, S. (2001). The effects of scrambling on Spanish and Korean agrammatic interpretation: Why linear models fail and structural models survive. Brain and Language, 79(3), 407–425. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787–821. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Beyond syntax: Language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies. NeuroReport, 13(3), 361–364. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200203040-00022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 269–298. doi: 10.1080/01690960244000018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Friederici, A. D., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. NeuroImage, 26(1), 221–233. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M (2009). Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1075/fol.18.2.07mac
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Processing psych verbs: Behavioural and MEG measures of two different types of semantic complexity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(6), 777–807. doi: 10.1080/01690961003616840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566816.003.0003
   Google Scholar
• Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. van Gompel (Ed.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–372). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. doi: 10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3
   Google Scholar
• Contreras, H. (1976). A theory of word order with special reference to Spanish (No. 9). North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelissen, F. W., Peters, E. M., & Palmer, J. (2002). The eyelink toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the psychophysics toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 613–617. doi: 10.3758/BF03195489
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crocker, M. W. (2012). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language (Vol. 20). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. doi: 10.2307/417577
   Google Scholar
• Cuervo, M. C. (2010). Some dative subjects are born, some are made. In Selected proceedings of the 12th hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 26–37). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Retrieved from http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/12/paper2403.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cupples, L. (2002). The structural characteristics and on-line comprehension of experiencer-verb sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(2), 125–162. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). Buscapalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 665–671. doi: 10.3758/BF03192738
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditman, T., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). An investigation of concurrent ERP and self-paced reading methodologies. Psychophysiology, 44(6), 927–935. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00593.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619. doi:10.2307/415037 doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dröge, A., Maffongelli, L., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2014). Luigi piace a Laura? In A. Bachrach, I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure (Vol. 10, pp. 83–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lfab.10.05
   Google Scholar
• Franco, J. (2013). Towards a typology of psych verbs: Evidence from Spanish. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 0, 119–134.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12(15), 3391–3394. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200110290-00048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gattei, C. A., Dickey, M. W., Wainselboim, A. J., & París, L. (2015). The thematic hierarchy in sentence comprehension: A study on the interaction between verb class and word order in Spanish. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(10), 1981–2007. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.1000345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gattei, C. A., Tabullo, Á., París, L., & Wainselboim, A. J. (2015). The role of prominence in Spanish sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 150, 22–35. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grewe, T., Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Wiese, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). Linguistic prominence and broca's area: The influence of animacy as a linearization principle. NeuroImage, 32(3), 1395–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.04.213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2007). Prominence scales and unmarked word order in Spanish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(2), 235–271. doi: 10.1007/s11049-006-9012-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haupt, F. S., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., Friederici, A. D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 54–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernanz, M. L., & Brucart, J. M. (1987). La sintaxis: Principios teóricos. Barcelona: Ed. Crítica.
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2), 262–284. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 12–35. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kretzschmar, F., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Staub, A., Roehm, D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2012). Prominence facilitates ambiguity resolution: On the interaction between referentiality, thematic roles and word order in syntactic reanalysis. In M. Lamers, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence (Vol. 40, pp. 239–271). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_11
   Google Scholar
• Lamers, M., & De Swart, P. (2012). Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2
   Google Scholar
• Logacev, P., & Vasishth, S. (2013). em2: A package for computing reading time measures for psycholinguistics. [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=em2 (R package version 0.9).
   Google Scholar
• Manouilidou, C., de Almeida, R. G., Schwartz, G., & Nair, N. P. V. (2009). Thematic roles in Alzheimer's disease: Hierarchy violations in psychological predicates. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(2), 167–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meseguer, E., Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 551–561. doi: 10.3758/BF03194956
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ocampo, F (1995). The word order of two-constituent constructions in spoken Spanish. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (Vol. 30, pp. 425–447). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tsl.30.15oca
   Google Scholar
• Piñango, M. M. (2006). Thematic roles as event structure relations. In I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, B. Comrie, & A. D. Friederici (Eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological, and psycholinguistic perspectives (Vol. 165, pp. 303–326). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219272.303
   Google Scholar
• Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Linear mixed-effects models: Basic concepts and examples. In J. C. Pinheiro, & D. M. Bates (Eds.), Mixed-effects models in s and s-plus (pp. 3–56). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/0-387-22747-4_1
   Google Scholar
• Primus, B. (2012). Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking. In M. Lamers, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence (Vol. 40, pp. 65–90). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_4
   Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Hauk, O. (2009). Understanding in an instant: Neurophysiological evidence for mechanistic language circuits in the brain. Brain and Language, 110(2), 81–94. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the EZ reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 720–732. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & McConkie, G. W. (1976). What guides a reader's eye movements? Vision Research, 16(8), 829–837. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(76)90143-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading and visual search: Effects of word frequency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2), 245–248. doi: 10.3758/BF03212426
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(5), 1188–1200. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.5.1188
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roehm, D., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I., Frisch, S., & Haider, H. (2004). Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. NeuroReport, 15(3), 409–412. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200403010-00005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 5–35. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: Eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 489–493. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A., & Clifton Jr., C. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either… or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 425–436. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.425
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.013.0019
   Google Scholar
• Suñer, M. (1982). Syntax and semantics of Spanish presentational sentence-types. Washington, DC: Georgetown University School of Language. doi: 10.1075/sl.8.3.08put
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, C. K., & Lee, M. (2009). Psych verb production and comprehension in agrammatic Broca's aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(4), 354–369. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
   Google Scholar
• Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
   Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., von der Malsburg, T., & Engelmann, F. (2013). What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(2), 125–134. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von der Malsburg, T., & Vasishth, S. (2013). Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1545–1578. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.728232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Bickel, B., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2009). Exploring the nature of the subject-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7-8), 1180–1226. doi: 10.1080/01690960802159937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Philipp, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2012). The role of animacy in online argument interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. In M. Lamers, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence (pp. 91–119). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_5
   Google Scholar
• Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36(5), 559–570. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3650559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and language, 107(2), 133–157. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar