Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT
Zur Ablage hinzufügen
  DetailsÜbersicht

Freigegeben
Zeitschriftenartikel

Incremental structure building of preverbal PPs in Dutch

MPG-Autoren
/persons/resource/persons225918

Coopmans,  Cas W.
Neurobiology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Language and Computation in Neural Systems, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Center for Language Studies, External Organizations;
International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons252715

Schoenmakers,  Gert-Jan
Center for Language Studies, External Organizations;
International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine externen Ressourcen hinterlegt
Volltexte (beschränkter Zugriff)
Für Ihren IP-Bereich sind aktuell keine Volltexte freigegeben.
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)
Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

Coopmans, C. W., & Schoenmakers, G.-J. (2020). Incremental structure building of preverbal PPs in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 37(1), 38-52. doi:10.1075/avt.00036.coo.


Zitierlink: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0007-70C2-F
Zusammenfassung
Incremental comprehension of head-final constructions can reveal structural attachment preferences for ambiguous phrases. This study investigates
how temporarily ambiguous PPs are processed in Dutch verb-final constructions. In De aannemer heeft op het dakterras bespaard/gewerkt ‘The
contractor has on the roof terrace saved/worked’, the PP is locally ambiguous between attachment as argument and as adjunct. This ambiguity is
resolved by the sentence-final verb. In a self-paced reading task, we manipulated the argument/adjunct status of the PP, and its position relative to the
verb. While we found no reading-time differences between argument and
adjunct PPs, we did find that transitive verbs, for which the PP is an argument, were read more slowly than intransitive verbs, for which the PP is an adjunct. We suggest that Dutch parsers have a preference for adjunct attachment of preverbal PPs, and discuss our findings in terms of incremental
parsing models that aim to minimize costly reanalysis.