EUSKAL PSIKOLINGUISTIKA
Kepa Erdozia
Euskal Filologiako Masterra 2009
www.elebilab.com
www.ehu.es/HEB/english_erdozia.htm
Gaurko Egitaraua:
Sarreratxo bat: Hizkuntza eta Burmuina
Sintaxi piska bat: Euskararen Hitz Hurrenkera
Jabekuntzazko esperimentuak
Irakurketa Denborak
Euskararen Hitz Hurrenkera Irakurketa Denboretan
Biharko Egitaraua:
NeuroIrudi Teknikak
fMRI
MEG
ERP
Euskararen Hitz hurrenkeraERP bidez
EUSKAL PSIKOLINGUISTIKA
BURMUINA, HISTORIA APUR BAT:
Aintzinatean Dualismoa: Burmuina vs. ArimaAlcmaeon (450 Ka) animalien gorputzak modelo bezala hartuta,
burmuina pentsamentuaren eta sentsazioen organoa zela esan zuen.
Aristotele (335 Ka): Pentsamentuaren organua bihotza. Burmuina beroa erregulatzeko. Pentsamentuaren oinarria ez da bihotza, baizik eta arima arrazionala (ez da materiala)
Zientzialariek aurrera darraite: Alejandriako bi biologo ospetsu, Herofilo eta Erasistrato (300 Ka) giza gortputzen disekzioan habilak zirenak inteligentzia burmuinean zegoela ondorioztatu zuten.
Galenok (170 Ka) memoria, emozioa, sentiduak eta ezagutza gogo-ahalmenak burmuinaren baitan zeudela esan zuen.
Erdi Aroan, eliza katolikoak anatomia ikerketak debekatu zituen eta burminaren azterketa eten egin zen
BURMUINA, HISTORIA APUR BAT:
Descartes: burmuineko isurien mugimendu hidraulikoak animalien tankerako jokaera azaltzen du, baina ez gogoaren goimailako funtzioak (inteligentzia, sentimenduak)
Sistema duala proposatu zuen: Burmuina materiala da, gogoa aldiz ez. Gogoak gizakion pentsamentuak eta nahiak biltzen ditu.
BURMUINA, HISTORIA APUR BAT:
Thomas Willisek 1664dean Cerebri Anatome idatzi zuen.Hemisferio, Lobulu, Neurologia moduko terminuak erabili
zituen.Burmuineko hemisferioek pentsamentua eta ekintzak
markatzen dituztela ondorioztatu zuen.Bere ikerketak burmuinaren atalen ikerketa funtzionalaren
oinarriak ezarri zituen
1,4 Kilo. Gurputzaren %1,5
22.000 milioi neurona
Gorputzaren energia kontsumoaren %20
a
BURMUINA
Estructura Citoarquitectonica
a
BURMUINA
Cortex
Gai Zuria
Gai GrisaGarun AzalaKortexa
BURMUINA
BURMUINA
Kortex SomatoSensoriala Kortex Motorea
Egiazko hizkuntza zer da?
Hizkuntza gizakion gaitasun biologikoa da, garapen aro bat daukana
Jaio aurretik hasten da hizkuntza garatzen gizakiongan
Jaiotzetiko hizkuntzaren garapena ez da nerabetasunaz geroztik ikasten den hizkuntza baten antzekoa
HIZKUNTZA
Nolakoa da hizkuntza?Kontzeptuak eta gertaerak (esanahia) hots edo keinu jakinekin (forma) lotzeko tresna sinbolikoa.
• Atal aldagaitzak eta aldakorrak dauzka.
• Ale diskretuduna, konbinatoriala da.• Mugatua da; haren ekoizpena
mugagabea da ordea.
HIZKUNTZA
Leonard Bloomfield 18871949
Haurrek amari imitatuz ikasten dute hizkuntza.
Noam Chomsky (1928)
Jabekuntzan imitazioa baino askoz gehiago dago;
haurrek berez ekartzen dute hizkuntzaren parte bat eratuta,
Gramatika Unibertsala dei dezakeguna, gizakion ondare biologikoaren parte dena.
Nola ikasten dugu hizkuntza?
HIZKUNTZA
Entzule unibertsalak!
Bizitzaren lehen-lehenengo hilabeteetan, inguruan ez dituzten eta gurasoek ezin
bereiz ditzaketen kontraste fonetikoak bereiz ditzakete haurrek!
Hamar hilabeteetatik aurrera, ordea, gaitasun hori galtzen dute, eta nork bere hizkuntzakoak diren fomena kontrasteak
baino ezin bereiz ditzake…
HIZKUNTZA
McGurk efektua: hizkuntza ikusi eta entzun egiten dugu.....
Paul Pierre Broca(18241880)
TAN: Brocaren gaixoaren burmuina
Patologia Linguistikoak: AFASIA
Carl Wernicke (18481904)Wernicke gaixo baten burmuina
a
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAK
Ezker hemisferioko lobulo frontalean kalteak dituzten gaixoek aditzen arazo gehiago dituzte izenekin baino. Kaltea ezkerreko lobulu Temporalean badago arazo gehiago izan hoy dituzte izenekin aditzen baino.
Kaltea egitura morfosintaktiko konplexuak ekoiztea bada, ezkerreko esparru frontaletan izaten da kaltea (ad. Broca)
Perpaus mailan, egitura morfosintaktikoak ulertzeko kaltea esparru perisilvianoetan kokatu ohi da.
aditzak
izenak
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAK
MEG: Magneto Encephalography
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAK
a
fMRI: functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAK
fMRI: functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAK
ERP: Event Related brain Potentials
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAK
pipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipiPUpipipipipipipipipipipipi
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAKERP: Event Related brain Potentials
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAKERP: Event Related brain Potentials
From Luck et al., 2000
BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAKERP: Event Related brain Potentials
Elebitasuna bi hizkuntza erabiltzeko gaitasuna duen pertsona edo komunitatea adierazten duen fenomenoa da.
ZER DA ELEBITASUNA?
Elebitasunaren oinarri neurologikoak ikertzean, elebidun talde desberdinak interesatzen zaizkigu:
Hizkuntza dominanteak
Elebidun goiztiarrak/berantiarrak
Hizkuntzen arteko antzekotasunak
Jabekuntzan prozesuan, lehenengo hizkuntzak Ezker Hemisferioko esparru jakin batzutan lokalizatzeko joera erakusten du.
Bigarren eta hirugarren hizkuntzak ikasten ditugunean beste sustrato neural batzuetan lokalizatu ohi dira, topografikoki eremu zabalagoak eta ez horren espezifikoak
(Kim et al. 1997, Dehaene et al. 1997).
ELEBITASUNA BURMUINEANElebitasunaren sustrato neuralak
BERANTIARRAK GOIZTIARRAK
Kim et al. 1997. Nature
ELEBITASUNA BURMUINEAN
Intersubject variability in the cortical representation of language is greater in L2 than in L1. Dehaene et al. 1997
ELEBITASUNA BURMUINEAN
Goizean ogia erosi dut nik dendan.Goizean ogia erosi dut *ni dendan.
Zawisezwki 2007
ELEBIDUNAKEuskaraEspainolaL1 Euskara – L2 Espainola
L1 Espainola – L2 Euskera
EMAITZAK:L1 Euskara = P600L2 Euskara = P600 EZ
ONDORIOA:Ergatibo = jabekuntza goiztiarra
aEUSKAL ELEBIDUNEN BURMUINA
Mikelen arrebek egunkaria saskian ekarri dute kioskotikMikelen arrebek *egunkariek saskian ekarri dute kioskotik
Diaz, Erdozia, Mueller, Laka, Sebastian, submitted
EMAITZA:L1 Euskara = P600
ONDORIOA:Ergatibo = jabekuntza goiztiarra
aEUSKAL ELEBIDUNEN BURMUINA
EUSKAL HITZ HURRENKERA
Quote (Chomsky 1986: 34)
The study of generative grammar represented a significant shift of focus in the approach to problems of language. Put in the simplest terms, to be elaborated below, the shift of focus was from behavior or the products of behavior to states of the mind/brain that enter into behavior. If one chooses to focus attention on this latter topic, the central concern becomes knowledge of language: its nature, origins, and use.
The answer to the first question is given by a particular generative grammar, a theory concerned with the state of the mind/brain of the person who knows a particular language. The answer to the second is given by a specification of UG along with an account of the ways in which its principles interact with experience to yield a particular language; UG is a theory of the “initial state” of the language faculty, prior to any linguistic experience. The answer to the third question would be a theory of how the knowledge of language attained enters into the expressions of thought and the understanding of presented specimens of language, and derivatively, into communication and other special uses of language.
The three basic questions that arise, then, are these:(1) (i) What constitutes knowledge of language?
(ii) How is knowledge of language acquired?(iii) How is knowledge of language put to use?
PLANNING
What constitutes knowledge of language?
How is knowledge of language acquired?
How is knowledge of language put to use?
Linguistic research about word order in Basque
How the children acquire word order in Basque
How humans use their knowledge of language to generate and process word orders in Basque
Free Word Ordera. PPSIOOV
Free Word Ordera. PP S IO O V[Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio]
Free Word Ordera. PP S IO O V[Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio][After dinnerPP] [MikelS] [ElenaIO] [the new beltO] [given hasV]‘After dinner, Mikel has given the new belt to Elena’
5 constituent sentence; P5 = 120 sentences.
Nearly, all constituent permutation are grammatical in Basque
d. IO V O PP S[Elenari] [oparitu dio] [gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek]
e. ...
c. S O PP V IO[Mikelek] [gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [oparitu dio] [Elenari]
b. O PP IO S V[Gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [Elenari] [Mikelek] [oparitu dio]
a. PP S IO O V[Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio][After dinnerPP] [MikelS] [ElenaIO] [the new beltO] [given hasV]‘After dinner, Mikel has given the new belt to Elena’
Free Word Order
Previous Research on Word Order in Basque
Generative GrammarSOV (De Rijk 1969, Eguzkitza 1986, Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Laka 1990, Artiagoitia 1995, Fernandez 1998, A. Elordieta 2001, Arregi 2001 among others …)
Previous Research on Word Order in Basque
Generative GrammarSOV (De Rijk 1969, Eguzkitza 1986, Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Laka 1990, Artiagoitia 1995, Fernandez 1998, A. Elordieta 2001, Arregi 2001 among others …)
SVO (Ormazabal et al 1994, G. Elordieta 1997, Haddican 2004)
Informational and Statistical approaches
Experimental Psycholinguistics: language acquistion
Osa 1990, Hidalgo 1994, Aldezabal et al 2003
Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982
De Rijk 1969
Statistical analysis: SOV
45967183209Analyzed sentences
0.5%0%1%0.5%VOS
2.5%1.5%2%3%VSO
4%1.5%7%2.5%OSV
6%5%9%5%OVS
30%31%37%23%SVO
57%61%44%66%SOV
TotalNarrativePlayTales
Addapted from De Rijk 1969: 16
De Rijk 1969
Following Greenberg: SOV
Statistical analysis: SOV
Relative clauses: SOV
45967183209Analyzed sentences
0.5%0%1%0.5%VOS
2.5%1.5%2%3%VSO
4%1.5%7%2.5%OSV
6%5%9%5%OVS
30%31%37%23%SVO
57%61%44%66%SOV
TotalNarrativePlayTales
Addapted from De Rijk 1969: 16
Postpositions V>Aux
NP
NP NP
Y Y Verb
Ortiz de Urbina 1989
Subject/Object asymetries
In the hierarchical configuration of Basque subjects are hierarchically higher than objects
INFL
INFL’’
INFL’Otsoak
VP’’
ardia V’
jan
duOtsoak ardia jan du
Ortiz de Urbina 1989Otsoak ardia jan du Ardia otsoak jan du
INFL
INFL’’
INFL’Otsoak
VP’’
ardia V’
jan
du
Ortiz de Urbina 1989Otsoak ardia jan du Ardia otsoak jan du
INFL’
VP’’ INFL
V’
tk
ti
tj
INFL’’
CP
otsoaki
ardiaj
C’
C
jan duk
CP
INFL
INFL’’
INFL’Otsoak
VP’’
ardia V’
jan
du
A. Elordieta 2001
Otsoak ardia jan duCP
T
C TP
AuxP
Aux
DPsub
v
vP
vP
AspP
VP Asp
DPobj V
OSV: Ardia otsoak jan duSOV
a) Displaced the object to the left periphery and focus insitu
b) Diplaced the subject to focus position and the verb to CP position; and
displaced the object to the topic position[TopObjj [FocSubji [CPjan du]Vaux [TP ti tj tVaux]]]
[TopObjj [TP Subj tj jan du]]
Antisymmetry (Kayne 1994, 2004)
Kayne: syntactic structure is universally and without exceptions of the form S[pecifier]H[ead]C[omplement]. The complement of a head invariably follows that head. The associated specifier invariably precedes both head and complement (2004: 3)
XP
HeadSpecifier Complement
Kayne: The question is whether Japanese [Basque] objects ever surface within VP, in complement position of V. Antisymmetry says no, given OV order (2004: 5)
All languages are based generated as SVO
Ormazabal, Uriagereka and UribeEtxebarria 1994
Maryga sono hono yonda
MaryS book thatO readV
Japanese
Mirenek liburu hori irakurri du
MaryS book thatO readV
BasqueDeclaratives
Marywa nanio yonda ka?
MaryS whatO readV Qmarker
Japanese
Zer irakurri du Mirenek?
What readV MaryS
BasqueInterrogatives
Ormazabal, Uriagereka and UribeEtxebarria 1994
In Basque interrogative sentences, the WHword raises the CP leaving behind the IP
CP
C
IP
tIP
C’In declarative sentences, IP moves to the specifier position of CP in the both languages
Neuter SOV order two possibilities
CP
C
WH
IP
C’
a) Before the movement of IP to CP, move the verb to C
b) Extract the arguments from the IP which is in CP
G. Elordieta 1997
CP
VP
T
DP V’
C
ModP
NegPMod
TP
Neg
DPV
a) In functional projections above the VP
How derived SOV order:
b) Agreement features are present in the verb from the start of the numeration and languages choose whether to spellout or not morphologically
Otsoak jan du ardiaSVO
Haddican 2004
CaseP
VP
Case’Zorraki
ordaindu ti
Declarative sentences: V>Aux
Negative sentences: Neg>Aux>V
Polarity Phrase (PolP)
From VO to OV
PolP
TP
Aux T’
Mod(evid)P
Mod(evid)’
Pol’
omen
!VP
Zorrak ordaindu
T tm
But, his system allowed focus construction which are ungrammatical
*JONEK Miren ikusi du
Word Order and Comunicative Abilities (Osa 1990)
The canonical word order in Basque is SubjetObjectVerb
a) Less presupositions are elicited by SOV
b) Prosodically flat
c) It replies to a What happened? question
d) All the sentence could be new information
Functionalist point of view
Informational structures of Focus provide word order variability
Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994)
Source: Hidalgo 1994
XVIIth Century
Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion
Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994)
Source: Hidalgo 1994
Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion
XIXth Century
Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994)
Source: Hidalgo 1994
Popular oral tales collections
Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion
Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994)
Source: Hidalgo 1994
Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion
Oral testimony from 1994
The Hidalgo’s statistical research continues but he changed the sentence selection criterion and then the sentences are not the same sentences that we followed in our research.
Word Order and Statistics (Aldezabal et al. 2003)
The corpus of the Euskaldunon Egunkaria (from January 1999 to May 2000)14,557 declarative sentences where 512 sentences had spelled out the subject, the object and the verb
Source: Aldezabal et al. 2003
Participants: 7 Groups of different age people
Aim: to analyze the Acquisition of different structures in Basque, and the processing strategies of these structures
Group 2: 45 years
Group 3: 56 years
Group 4: 67 years
Group 5: 78 years
Group 6: 1011 years
Group 7: adults
Group 1: 34 years
Task: To represent the listened sentence with some toys
Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982
Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982
Zakurrak neska bota duNeska zakurrak bota du
Zakurrak bota du neskaNeska bota du zakurrak
45 y.o. 56 y.o. 67 y.o. 78 y.o. 1011 y.o. adults34 y.o.
15 114 3
19 113 7
18 2 20 011 9 11 9
19 1 20 011 9 18 2 20 0
20 0
15 111 7
19 115 5
17 3 20 015 5 16 4
20 0 20 014 6 20 0 19 1
20 0
Subject first sentences were comprehended well
Object first sentences were comprehended worse untill the age of 8
It seems that younger children understood the first constituent as subject and the second as object
INTERNAL SUMMARY 1
GENERATIVE GRAMMAR
Most linguists:
Basic word order Canonical word order
SOV SOV
Antisymmetrists: SVO SOV
FUNCTIONALISTS: SOV
STATISTIC RESEARCH:
De RijkHidalgoAldezabal et al
PSYCHOLINGUISTICS (ACQUISTION):
SOV
SOV
SOV/SVO
SVO
Previous Research on Word Order in Basque
Most frequent word order
Earliest acquired word order
Quote:
“Just as the theory of grammar has as its goals an account of Universal Grammar and parameters of language variation, the theory of sentence
processing has as its goal the characterization of the universal parser, the human sentence processing mechanism” Sekerina 2003: 302
Psycolinguistics Tecnique in Syntax
Participants perform the experiment at their own pace.
To move from one element to the next element, participants had to press the space bar of the computer keyboard, one press for each element. Thus, participants decided the time they needed in order to process each element of the sentence, and therefore they decide the time they needed to comprehend the whole sentence.
SELF PACED READING MOVING WINDOW
Psycholinguistic Experiments in Basque: Method
The comprehension task allowed us to be sure that participants had understood the sentences they read. The task consisted in a yesorno question after each sentence. The answer of half of questions of each word order was “yes” and the other half was “no”.
COMPREHENSION TASK
***** ***** ***** *****
Emakumeak ***** ***** ***** (The woman)
***** gizona ***** *****(the man)
***** ****** ikusi ***** (seen)
***** ****** ***** du(has)
Egia al da emakume batek gizon bat ikusi duela?
(Is it true that a woman has seen a man?)
SOVOSV
Goal: to determine whether OSV sentences have a higher processing cost than SOV sentences:
(a) longer reading times
(b) comprehension problems
23 participants (13 w and 10 m) Agerange was 18 to 36 (mean 25; SD ± 5).
Participants
Materials32 sentences in SOV and 32 sentences in OSV. 2 lists: 16 SOV and 16 OSV sentences per condition. 32 fillers (the same for two lists). Experimental conditions and fillers contained 4 words
emakume-ak gizon-a ikus-i du
woman-the/Subj. man-the/Obj. seen has
‘the woman has seen the man’
gizon-a emakume-ak ikus-i du
man-the/Obj. woman-the/Subj. seen has
‘the woman has seen the man’
Subject
Object
Verb Aux
Subject
Object
Verb Aux
Materials
Filler sentences consisted in one argument sentences
Manu futbolari bikaina da.‘Manu is an excellent soccer player’.
Materials
Recording
Recording
The EXPE6 (Pallier et al. 1997) recorded the reaction times and the answers of the participants:
(i) time to read each word of the sentence(ii) the time to perform the comprehension task (read and answer)(iii) whether the answer to the question is correct or not.
Expectations
The derived OSV word order sentences(i) would require longer reading time(ii) would require longer reading time in the comprehension task(iii) would induce more errors in the comprehension task.
SOV vs. OSV: Results
Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score
•SOV order is processed faster than OSV order
Reading time of two word orders
3500
36003700
3800
3900
40004100
4200
SOV OSV
Sentence Type
Tim
e (m
s)
p<0.005
Reaction Times of Comprehension Task
2300235024002450250025502600265027002750
SOV OSV
Senteces Type
Tim
es (m
s)
p<0.002
Reaction Times in the Comprehension Task
• Questions about OSV word order elicited longer reading time
SOV vs. OSV: Results
•OSV order elicited more errors than SOV order
Errors in the Comprehension Task
Comprehension Task: Errors
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%
SOV OSV
Sentence Type
Per
cent
age
p<0.001
SOV vs. OSV: Results
Mean reading times Word by Word
Unmarked form processed faster than marked OSV requires a reanalysis of syntactic structure at subject position
Reading Times Word by Word
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
DP DP Vb Aux
Sentence Element
Tim
e (m
s)
sov
osv
p<0.05
p<0.01
p<0.05p<0.05
interaction between first two DPs of the sentences F = 12.9; p < 0.002
SOV vs. OSV: Results
Ambiguous Chains
Goal: to determine how the ambiguous chains were processing and how the syntactic disambiguation happened.
(a) whether ambiguous chains were processed as canonical SOV sentences
(b) syntactic disambiguation elicited a syntactic reanalysis of the sentences
MORPHOLOGICAL AMBIGUITY
OBJECT PLURAL
SUBJECT SINGULAR
EMAKUME-AK‘WOMAN-X’
Emakume-ak gizon-ak ikusi ditu woman-X man-X see has
‘The woman has seen the men’ o ‘The man has seen the women’
MethodMETHOD
Participants23 subjects (3 man and 20 woman; mean age 20.4, SD = 2.5).
MaterialsThree conditions (48 sentences per condition):
Three lists: one version of each item was assigned to one of the two listsList 1: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences)List 2: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences)List 3: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences)
48 filler sentences, the same for every list.
SOV condition
OSV condition
AMB condition
As in the previous experiment
The new condition
Emakume-ek gizon-ak ikus-i dituzte
women the Subj. men the Obj. seen have
‘the women have seen the men’
Emakume-ak gizon-ak ikus-i ditu woman-X man-X seen has‘the woman has seen the men’ or ‘the man has seen the women’
Gizon-ak emakume-ek ikus-i dituzte
man-X women-the Subj. seen have
‘the women have seen the men’
Subject
Object
Verb+aux
Subject
Object
Verb+aux
Ambiguous Chain
Ambiguous Chains: Material
Total Reading Time
4000
4500
5000
5500
SOV AMB OSV
Sentence Type
Tim
e (
ms)
Ambiguous Chains: Results
n.s.
p<0.001
Ambiguous chain is processed as SOV sentence
Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score
Ambiguous Chains: Results
The objects are processed faster than subjects
At subject second position, the reanalysis of the structure
SOV vs OSV, word by word
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
DP1 DP2 Verb Aux
Sentence Element
Tim
e (
ms
)
SOV
OSV
p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.001p<0.001
interaction between first two DPs of the sentences F=17,137; p<0.001)
Ambiguous Chains: Results
No evidences of syntactic reanalysis. No interaction
Ambiguous chains are processed as SOV order sentencesSOV is the simplest processing solution.
SOV vs AMB, word by word
900
1100
1300
1500
DP1 DP2 Verb Aux
Sentences Element
Tim
e (
ms
)
SOV
AMB
p<0.01p<0.05n.s. n.s.
VerbMedial Sentences
Goal: To determine how the verbmedial sentences were processing. These sentences are considered derived by linguists
Participants24 participants (2 men, 22 women; mean age 20, DS ± 3.21)
MaterialsFive conditions (100 sentences per condition):
SUBJECTsgVERBOBJECTsg
OBJECTsgVERBSUBJECTsg
SUBJECTplVERBOBJECTpl
OBJECTplVERBSUBJECTpl
AMBIGUOUSVERBAMBIGUOUS
100 filler sentences, the same for every list.
a. Gizonak ikusi du emakumea [SakVOa] ManS see has womanO
‘The man has seen the woman’
b. Emakumea ikusi du gizonak [OaVSak] WomanO see has manS
‘The man has seen the woman’
c. Gizonak ikusi ditu emakumeak [AmbVAmb] ManX see has womanX
‘The man has seen the women’ or ‘The woman has seen the men’
d. Gizonek ikusi dituzte emakumeak [SekVOak] MenS see have womenO ‘The men have seen the women’
e. Emakumeak ikusi dituzte gizonek [OakVSek] womenO see have menS
‘The men have seen the women’
SVO vs. OVS Material
total reading times
2900
3100
3300
3500
3700
SakVOa OaVSak AMBakVAMBak SekVOak OakVSek
sentences type
time
(ms)
SVO vs. OVS Results
The sentences in singular were processed faster than the sentences in plural and the ambiguous chains (p<0.001).
There were no differences between SVO and OVS sentences; thus we considered the two structures derived.
Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score
n.s.
n.s. n.s.
p<0.001
SVO vs. OVS Results
COMPREHENSION TASK: TIME
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
SakVOa OaVSak AMBakVAMBak SekVOak OakVSek
sentence type
time
(ms)
Reaction Times in the Comprehension Task
Differences between the singular sentences and the remainning conditions
p<0.001
p<0.007
p<0.01
No differences between the plural conditions
SVO vs. OVS Results
comprehension task: errors
0123456789
SakVOa OaVSak AMBakVAMBak SekVOak OakVSek
sentence type
erro
rs (/
20)
Errors in the Comprehension Task
Ambiguous condition elicited most errors in the comprehension task (p<0.001 comparing to any condition)
SakVOa condition elicited fewest errors in the comprehension task
SVO vs. OVS ResultsMean reading times Word by Word
Reading Times Word by Word
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
DP V Aux DP
sentence element
tim
e (m
s)
SakVOa
OaVSak
n.s. n.s. n.s.p<.025
The object was read faster than the subject
But, there was not any other difference, suggesting that verbmedial sentences are derived
SVO vs. OVS: ResultsMean reading times Word by Word
Reading Times Word by Word
600
800
1000
1200
1400
DP V Aux DP
sentence element
tim
e (m
s)
SekVOak
OakVSek
There was no difference, suggesting that verbmedial sentences are derived
SVO vs. OVS: ResultsMean reading times Word by Word
Reading Times Word by Word
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
DP V Aux DP
sentence element
time
(ms)
SekVOak
AMBakVAMBak
P<0.008
Interaction between verbauxiliary and sentence type. (F=5,924 p<.02)
The fact that the sentences’ first argument is considered the subject of the sentences could explain the differences between the SVO and the OVS without postulating that one of them (SVO/OVS) is more basic than the other
Total Reading Times
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
SOV OSV SVO OVS
Sentence Type
Tim
e (m
s)
SOVOSV: p<.02
SVOOSV: p<.005
OVSOSV: p<.002.
No differences between SOV, SVO and OVS sentences
COMPARING SOV AND SVO
SOV vs OSV
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
DP1 DP2 Verb Aux
Sentences Element
Tim
e (m
s)
SOV
OSV
SVO vs OVS
500
600700
800
900
10001100
1200
DP1 DP2 Verb Aux
Sentence Element
Tim
e (m
s)
SVO
OVS
Interaction (F=18,366; p<.001)
p<.001
p<.005
No Interaction
p<.005
COMPARING SOV AND SVO
ELEBIDUNEN PROZESAMENDUA
SakOaV OaSakV AMBAMBV SekOakV OakSekV3000
3500
4000
4500
Canonical vs. Derived (nonnatives)
Sentences Types
Tim
e (m
s)NonNative Speakers (AoA= 3): Results
Mean reading times
DP1 DP2 V Aux600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
Word by Word (nonnatives)
SakOaVOaSakVAMBAMBVSekOakVOakSekV
Element of Sentence
Tim
e (m
s)
Mean reading times Word by Word
NonNative Speakers (AoA= 3): Results
BEHAVIORAL RESULTS
a) SOV word order is processed faster and easier than OSV.
b) Object is read faster than the subject
c) OSV sentences require a syntactic reanalysis at subject position
d) Ambiguous chains were processed as canonical SOV.
e) No difference was found in verbmedial SVO and OVS word orders.
BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS SUGGEST THAT THE
CANONICAL WORD ORDER IS SOV IN BASQUE.
f) Nonnative speakers (AoA=3) behave like Native Speakers.
BIHAR GEHIAGO
Kepa Erdozia
www.elebilab.com
Top Related