HIGH ATTACHMENT OF ADJUNCTS IN SENTENCES WITH COMPLEX NOUN PHRASES DURING SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION IN MONGOLIAN NATIVE SPEAKERS
https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2018-16-4-39-47
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to reveal the preferences in ambiguity resolution of adjunct attachments in Mongolian (referred to as high vs. low attachment). The off-line questionnaire technique in Mongolian native speakers was used to collect the material. The sample comprises data from 193 monolingual Mongolian schoolchildren and university students aged from 16 to 24 years. The typical structure of Mongolian sentences with two potential attachment sites for the adjunct is as shown by the example: Гэмт хэрэгтэн тагтан дээр байсан жүжигчнийNP2 үйлчлэгч-бусгуйгNP1 буудсан (The criminal shot the maidNP1 of the actressNP2 standing on the balcony). Statistical results of responses’ analysis show that young Mongolian native speakers tend to prefer high attachment strategy (59% of total number of cases). This percentage of NP1-preference choices shows a high level of significance of the non-random strategy when Mongolian native speakers have to resolve ambiguity of high attachment of adjunct (Z = 6.77, p <0.001). For the Mongolian language, this off-line study is the first to establish such a psycholinguistic preference. Preliminarily, it is possible to claim that Mongolian may be included in the group of languages with high attachment preference (along with Japanese, Korean, Italian, Greek, German, and Russian).
About the Authors
M. S. Vlasov
Shukshin Altai State Humanities Pedagogical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
V. I. Pavlov
National University of Mongolia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. Undarmaa
Shukshin Altai State Humanities Pedagogical University; Khovd State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
T. I. Gromoglasova
Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Драгой О. В. Разрешение синтаксической неоднозначности: правила и вероятности // Вопр. языкознания. 2006. № 6. С. 44-61.
2. Чернова Д. А. Синтаксический анализ предложения в процессе восприятия речи: экспериментальное исследование обработки синтаксически неоднозначных конструкций в русском языке // Вестн. Перм. ун-та. Рос. и заруб. филология. 2015. № 1 (29). С. 36-45.
3. Anisimov V. N., Fedorova O. V., Latanov A. V. Eye Movement Parameters in Reading Sentences with Syntactic Ambiguities in Russian // Human Physiology (Moscow). 2014. Vol. 40, № 5. P. 521-531.
4. Antinucci F., Duranti A., Gebert L. Relative clause structure, relative clause perception, and the change from SOV to SVO // Cognition. 1979. Vol. 7, Issue 2. P. 145-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90018-0
5. Batchuluun D. A contrastive grammar of Mongolian and English. Charis Storms & Brock David (Eds). Soyombo Printing Company, Ulaanbaatar. 2013. ISBN 99929-9-146-1
6. Fodor J.D. Learning to parse? // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1998. Vol. 27. P. 285-319.
7. Fodor J.D. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading // Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32. Amherst: GSLA, Univ. of Massachusetts. 2002. P. 113-132.
8. Frazier L., Fodor J.D. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model // Cognition. 1978. Vol. 6. P. 291-326.
9. Gibson E., Schütze C., Salomon A. The relationship between the frequency and the complexity of linguistic structure // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1996. Vol. 25. P. 59-92.
10. Grillo N., Costa A. A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles // Cognition. 2014. Vol. 133, №1. P. 156-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019
11. Heydel M., Murray W.S. On-line and off-line effects in relative clause attachment - A matter of individual preference? // Paper presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2005.
12. Hirose Y. Recycling prosodic boundaries // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2003. Vol. 32. P. 167-195.
13. Hirotani M., Frazier L., Rayner K. Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye-movements // Journal of Memory and Language. 2006. Vol. 54. P. 425-443.
14. Janhunen J. Mongolic languages // Brown, K. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2006. P. 231-234.
15. Jun S.-A., Bishop J. Priming Implicit Prosody: Prosodic Boundaries and Individual Differences // Language and Speech. 2015. Vol. 58, №4. P. 459-473. DOI:10.1177/0023830914563368
16. Mitchell D. C., Cuetos F., Corley M.M.B., Brysbaert M. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1995. Vol. 24, №6. P. 469-488.
17. Munkhtsetseg N. On the Mongolian Students` Difficulties in Acquiring English Relative Clauses, Due to Syntactic Structure Difference // At the Crossroads: Challenges of Foreign Language Learning. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Editors: Piechurska-Kuciel, Ewa, Szymańska-Czaplak, Elżbieta, Szyszka, Magdalena (Eds.). Springer International Publishing AG. 2017. P. 53-71. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55155-5_4
18. Swets B., Desmet T., Hamrick D.Z., Ferreira F. The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2007. Vol. 136, № 1. P. 64-81.
19. Traxler M.J. Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis // Memory and Cognition. 2007. Vol. 35, №5. P. 1107-1121. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193482.
20. Yamada T., Arai M., Hirose Y. Unforced Revision in Processing Relative Clause Association Ambiguity in Japanese: Evidence Against Revision as Last Resort // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2017. Vol. 46, №3. P. 661-714. DOI 10.1007/s10936-016-9457-8
Review
For citations:
Vlasov M.S., Pavlov V.I., Undarmaa D., Gromoglasova T.I. HIGH ATTACHMENT OF ADJUNCTS IN SENTENCES WITH COMPLEX NOUN PHRASES DURING SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION IN MONGOLIAN NATIVE SPEAKERS. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. 2018;16(4):39-47. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2018-16-4-39-47
Views:
154
Email this article 