Abstract
AbstractPrevious research has suggested that some syntactic information such as word class can be processed parafoveally during reading. However, it is still unclear to what extent early syntactic cueing within noun phrases can facilitate word processing during dynamic reading. Two experiments (total N = 72) were designed to address this question using a gaze-contingent boundary change paradigm to manipulate the syntactic fit within a nominal phrase. Either the article (Experiment 1) or the noun (Experiment 2) was manipulated in the parafovea, resulting in a syntactic mismatch, depending on the condition. Results indicated a substantial elevation of viewing times on both parts of the noun phrase when conflicting syntactic information had been present in the parafovea. In Experiment 1, the article was also fixated more often in the syntactic mismatch condition. These results provide direct evidence of parafoveal syntactic processing. Based on the early time-course of this effect, it can be concluded that grammatical gender is used to generate constraints for the processing of upcoming nouns. To our knowledge, these results also provide the first evidence that syntactic information can be extracted from a parafoveal word N + 2.
Funder
Bergische Universität Wuppertal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,General Medicine
Reference65 articles.
1. Adger, D., & Harbour, D. (2008). Why phi. Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces (pp. 1–34). OUP Oxford.
2. Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2011). Parafoveal processing of word n+ 2 during reading: Do the preceding words matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(4), 1210–1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023096
3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
5. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear lixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823