
doi: 10.1111/cogs.12168
pmid: 25256303
AbstractSyntactic complexity effects have been investigated extensively with respect to comprehension (e.g., Demberg & Keller, 2008; Gibson, 1998, 2000; Gordon et al., 2001, 2004; Grodner & Gibson, 2005; King & Just, 1991; Lewis & Vasishth, 2005; Lewis et al., 2006; McElree et al., 2003; Wanner & Maratsos, 1978). According to one prominent class of accounts (experience‐based accounts; e.g., Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008; Gennari & MacDonald, 2008, 2009; Wells et al., 2009), certain structures cause comprehension difficulty due to their scarcity in the language. But why are some structures less frequent than others? In two elicited‐production experiments we investigated syntactic complexity effects in relative clauses (Experiment 1) and wh‐questions (Experiment 2) varying in whether or not they contained non‐local dependencies. In both experiments, we found reliable durational differences between subject‐extracted structures (which only contain local dependencies) and object‐extracted structures (which contain nonlocal dependencies): Participants took longer to begin and produce object‐extractions. Furthermore, participants were more likely to be disfluent in the object‐extracted constructions. These results suggest that there is a cost associated with planning and uttering the more syntactically complex, object‐extracted structures, and that this cost manifests in the form of longer durations and disfluencies. Although the precise nature of this cost remains to be determined, these effects provide one plausible explanation for the relative rarity of object‐extractions: They are more costly to produce.
Adult, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Research Design, Task Performance and Analysis, Reaction Time, Cognitive Science, Humans, Female, Comprehension, Language
Adult, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Research Design, Task Performance and Analysis, Reaction Time, Cognitive Science, Humans, Female, Comprehension, Language
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 35 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
