The effects of verb’s inflectional entropy on the processing of reflexive objects

Consider the minimal pair:

a.   Maria prijst/ helpt zichzelf                     

      Maria praises/ helps herself

 b. Maria prijst/ helpt Kathrin                    

      Maria praises/ helps Kathrin

Interpretation of zichzelf requires an intra-sentential referent while Kathrin does not. We use an information-theoretical measure to quantify processing complexity, namely the inflectional entropy of the verbal paradigm, a measure that reflects how an inflectional paradigm is organized in long term memory (LTM). We show that interpretation of a referentially dependent lexical item like zichzelf requires an operation on the verb itself because its speed of processing is modulated by the complexity of the verb as quantified by the inflectional entropy of its paradigm. More precisely, the value of the inflectional entropy influences the speed of activation of an inflected verb type from LTM as well as its re-accessing in working memory (WM). Furthermore, we argue that the speed is modulated according to the principle "what is easier to activate is harder to re-access".

In our experimental study, we used the self-paced reading task, measuring reading times at the point of the verb and at that of the object. We attested that verbs belonging to high entropy paradigms are retrieved faster than those belonging to low entropy paradigms. Crucially, when the verb is re-accessed, as in the cases of referentially dependent objects like zichzelf, verbs with high inflectional entropy delay the interpretation of the object, as reflected by the longer reading times. In other words, zichzelf is processed faster when it is the object of a praise-type verb (low inflectional entropy) than when it is the object of a help-type verb (high inflectional entropy).

Keywords: verbal entropy, processing, reflexives, dependency, re-accessing

References

Anderson, J. R., 1974. Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, October, 6(4), pp. 451-474.

Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. & Schreuder, R., 2006. Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Volume 53, p. 496-512.

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L., 1995. The CELEX lexical database (version release 2)[CD-ROM]. In: Philadelphia: PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A. & Woolley, J., 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol 111(2), pp. 228-238.

Koornneef, A., 2008. Eye-catching Anaphora. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.

Kostić, A., 1991. Informational approach to processing inflected morphology:Standard data reconsidered. Psychological Research 53, pp. 62-70.

Kostić, A., 1995. Informational load constraints on processing inflected morphology.. In: Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: s.n.

Kostić, A., Marković, T. & Baucal, A., 2003. Inflectional morphology and word meaning: Orthogonal or co-implicative domains?. In: Morphological structure in language processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-44.

Milin, P., Filipović Đurđević, D. & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., 2009. The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), pp. 50-64.

Milin, P. K., V., K. A. & Baayen, R. H., 2009. Paradigms bit by bit: an information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In: J. &. B. J. Blevins, ed. Analogy in grammar:Form and acquisition. s.l.:Oxford University Press, pp. 214-252.

Moscoso del Prado, F., Kostić, A. & and Baayen, R., 2004. Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing.. Cognition, Band 94, pp. 1-18.

Nietzsche, F. W., 1909. Beyond good and evil: Prelude to a philosophy of the future. 2nd Hrsg. Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis.

Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E., 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry , 24(4), pp. 657-720.

Reuland, E., 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Shannon, C. E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal , Volume 27, p. 379-423.

Slamecka, N. J. & Graf, P., 1978. The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), pp. 592-604.

van Ewijk, L. & Avrutin, S., 2011. Auditory lexical decision in healthy elderly and young subjects.The effect of information load and inflectional entropy.. Procedia- Social and Behavioural Sciences, Volume 23, pp. 104-105.

Veenker, T., 2011. The Zep Experiment Control Application (Version 06.12). [Online]
Available at: http://www.hum.uu.nl/uilots/lab/zep/.

Wagner, A. D. et al., 1998. Building Memories: Remembering and Forgetting of Verbal Experiences as Predicted by Brain Activity. Science, Band 281, pp. 1188-1191.

Download

Download full text of the article as PDF