Im vorliegenden Aufsatz wird die Frage nach der potentiellen Implementierung der rekursiven AnBn--Strukturen durch den Mechanismus der Satzverarbeitung behandelt. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die einfachste Verarbeitungsstrategie, wo die adjazenten Sequenzen von zwei Kategorien A und B aufgezählt und verglichen werden, wegen der asymmetrischen Struktur der zentral-eingebetteten syntaktischen Abhängigkeiten keine Anwendung bei der kognitiven Verarbeitung finden kann.
EN
This article is devoted to the issue of the potential implementation of recursive AnBn structures by the sentence-processing mechanism. Worth noting is the fact that the simplest processing strategy, whereby categories A and B are listed and compared, cannot be applied to the cognitive processing of asymmetric structures of centrally embedded syntactic dependencies.
This paper discusses the issue of the boundaries of incrementality in sentence-comprehension processes.The maximum incrementality, postulated as unlimited interactive sentence-comprehension models, allows anticipation and prediction top-down processing, facilitating quick interpretation of the perceived linguistic input. However, it involves a substantial strain on cognitive resources, especially at the beginning of the sentence. In addition, in the case of structures with verbs placed at the end of a sentence, unlimited interactivity keeps vast knowledge resources active until the verb and its arguments are agreed.This imposes a certain order of importance on interactive models at the same time assigned to the ongoing top-down processing, thus limiting incrementality, interactivity and the ability to anticipate.
Constructing dependency relations, in particular subject-verb agreement, in languages in which verbs may occupy the final position in the sentence, requires a combination of newly appearing lexical items with the existing context, such that it extends beyond the limits of the phrase. New words can be integrated only if the part of the sentence that has already been processed remains in a state of activation, being open to receive new elements. This article focuses on the question of the specificity for the domain of linguistic knowledge of the working memory, as the cognitive system in which representations are temporarily stored and manipulated.
This paper explores how bidirectional and unidirectional comitative constructions are processed. Bidirectional (symmetric) comitative constructions describe events where the two actors undergo the same effect described by the predicate (e.g. John was kissing with Mary), whereas unidirectional (asymmetric, instrumental-like) comitative constructions describe events in which one of the actors is the agent, and the other one is the patient (e.g. John was messing with Mary). In particular, we used the self-paced reading paradigm to determine if the two constructions access distinct mental representations. We found that the understanding of the two constructions differ as a function of word-order, and there is a difference in the processing of anaphoras referring to the Subject. Taken together, the findings suggest that mental representations activated by bidirectional and unidirectional constructions are also processed automatically during online language comprehension. Results are interpreted within the framework of the simulation paradigm (Bergen, 2007) and the situation model account (Zwaan, Radvansky, 1998).
Die Kontroverse um die prozedurale Modularität hat mit der Krise der Generativen Grammatik und dem Aufkommen und rasanten Aufschwung der kognitiven Linguistik holistischer Prägung deutlich nachgelassen. Doch die aktuellen, vorwiegend anhand der deutschen Sprache gelieferten Erkenntnisse auf dem Gebiet der Satzverarbeitung (das sog. German paradigm) lassen diese Frage in einem neuen Licht erscheinen. Im Beitrag wird die Problematik der zeitlichen Dimension des Satzverstehens aufgegriffen. Es wird insbesondere auf die Unterdeterminiertheit des prozeduralen Modulbegriffs sowie auf die verfrühte Interpretation mancher experimentellen Befunde als Evidenz gegen/für die These der prozeduralen Modularität verwiesen.
EN
The controversy over procedural modularity has subsided significantly with the crisis of generative grammar and the emergence and rapid rise of holistic cognitive linguistics. However, the current findings in the field of sentence perception (the so-called German paradigm), which are mainly provided for the German language, throw a new light on this question. The paper deals with the temporal dimension of sentence comprehension with special attention paid to the underdetermination of the concept of procedural module as well as to the premature interpretation of some experimental findings as evidence against/for the thesis of procedural modularity.
PL
Kontrowersje wokół modularności proceduralnej znacznie osłabły wraz z kryzysem gramatyki generatywnej oraz powstaniem i szybkim rozwojem lingwistyki typu holistycznego. Jednak aktualne odkrycia w dziedzinie badań nad percepcją języka, pozyskane głównie na przykładzie języka niemieckiego (tzw. German paradigm), przedstawiają tę kwestię w nowym świetle. W artykule podjęto problematykę czasowego wymiaru rozumienia zdań, wskazując w szczególności na niedookreśloność pojęcia modułu proceduralnego oraz przedwczesną interpretację wyników niektórych badań eksperymentalnych jako dowodów przemawiających za tezą modularności proceduralnej lub przeciw niej.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.