Message formulation and structural assembly

Describing "easy" and "hard" events with preferred and dispreferred syntactic structures

Maartje van de Velde, Antje Meyer, Agnieszka Ewa Konopka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When formulating simple sentences to describe pictured events, speakers look at the referents they are describing in the order of mention. Accounts of incrementality in sentence production rely heavily on analyses of this gaze-speech link. To identify systematic sources of variability in message and sentence formulation, two experiments evaluated differences in formulation for sentences describing “easy” and “hard” events (more codable and less codable events) with preferred and dispreferred structures (actives and passives). Experiment 1 employed a subliminal cuing manipulation and a cumulative priming manipulation to increase production of passive sentences. Experiment 2 examined the influence of event codability on formulation without a cuing manipulation. In both experiments, speakers showed an early preference for looking at the agent of the event when constructing active sentences. This preference was attenuated by event codability, suggesting that speakers were less likely to prioritize encoding of a single character at the outset of formulation in “easy” events than in “harder” events. Accessibility of the agent influenced formulation primarily when an event was “harder” to describe. Formulation of passive sentences in Experiment 1 also began with early fixations to the agent but changed with exposure to passive syntax: speakers were more likely to consider the patient as a suitable sentential starting point after cumulative priming. The results show that the message-to-language mapping in production can vary with the ease of encoding an event structure and of generating a suitable linguistic structure.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)124-144
Number of pages21
JournalJournal of Memory and Language
Volume71
Early online date10 Dec 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Syntactics
Linguistics
Language
event
Experiments
experiment
manipulation
Syntactic Structure
syntax
Experiment
linguistics

Keywords

  • Sentence Planning
  • Incrementality
  • Structural priming
  • Eye-tracking
  • Timecourse of sentence formulation
  • Structural processing

Cite this

Message formulation and structural assembly : Describing "easy" and "hard" events with preferred and dispreferred syntactic structures. / van de Velde, Maartje; Meyer, Antje; Konopka, Agnieszka Ewa.

In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 71, 02.2014, p. 124-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ab2e7692f23447d1849487f661f0ee45,
title = "Message formulation and structural assembly: Describing {"}easy{"} and {"}hard{"} events with preferred and dispreferred syntactic structures",
abstract = "When formulating simple sentences to describe pictured events, speakers look at the referents they are describing in the order of mention. Accounts of incrementality in sentence production rely heavily on analyses of this gaze-speech link. To identify systematic sources of variability in message and sentence formulation, two experiments evaluated differences in formulation for sentences describing “easy” and “hard” events (more codable and less codable events) with preferred and dispreferred structures (actives and passives). Experiment 1 employed a subliminal cuing manipulation and a cumulative priming manipulation to increase production of passive sentences. Experiment 2 examined the influence of event codability on formulation without a cuing manipulation. In both experiments, speakers showed an early preference for looking at the agent of the event when constructing active sentences. This preference was attenuated by event codability, suggesting that speakers were less likely to prioritize encoding of a single character at the outset of formulation in “easy” events than in “harder” events. Accessibility of the agent influenced formulation primarily when an event was “harder” to describe. Formulation of passive sentences in Experiment 1 also began with early fixations to the agent but changed with exposure to passive syntax: speakers were more likely to consider the patient as a suitable sentential starting point after cumulative priming. The results show that the message-to-language mapping in production can vary with the ease of encoding an event structure and of generating a suitable linguistic structure.",
keywords = "Sentence Planning, Incrementality, Structural priming, Eye-tracking, Timecourse of sentence formulation, Structural processing",
author = "{van de Velde}, Maartje and Antje Meyer and Konopka, {Agnieszka Ewa}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.jml.2013.11.001",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "124--144",
journal = "Journal of Memory and Language",
issn = "0749-596X",
publisher = "ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Message formulation and structural assembly

T2 - Describing "easy" and "hard" events with preferred and dispreferred syntactic structures

AU - van de Velde, Maartje

AU - Meyer, Antje

AU - Konopka, Agnieszka Ewa

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - When formulating simple sentences to describe pictured events, speakers look at the referents they are describing in the order of mention. Accounts of incrementality in sentence production rely heavily on analyses of this gaze-speech link. To identify systematic sources of variability in message and sentence formulation, two experiments evaluated differences in formulation for sentences describing “easy” and “hard” events (more codable and less codable events) with preferred and dispreferred structures (actives and passives). Experiment 1 employed a subliminal cuing manipulation and a cumulative priming manipulation to increase production of passive sentences. Experiment 2 examined the influence of event codability on formulation without a cuing manipulation. In both experiments, speakers showed an early preference for looking at the agent of the event when constructing active sentences. This preference was attenuated by event codability, suggesting that speakers were less likely to prioritize encoding of a single character at the outset of formulation in “easy” events than in “harder” events. Accessibility of the agent influenced formulation primarily when an event was “harder” to describe. Formulation of passive sentences in Experiment 1 also began with early fixations to the agent but changed with exposure to passive syntax: speakers were more likely to consider the patient as a suitable sentential starting point after cumulative priming. The results show that the message-to-language mapping in production can vary with the ease of encoding an event structure and of generating a suitable linguistic structure.

AB - When formulating simple sentences to describe pictured events, speakers look at the referents they are describing in the order of mention. Accounts of incrementality in sentence production rely heavily on analyses of this gaze-speech link. To identify systematic sources of variability in message and sentence formulation, two experiments evaluated differences in formulation for sentences describing “easy” and “hard” events (more codable and less codable events) with preferred and dispreferred structures (actives and passives). Experiment 1 employed a subliminal cuing manipulation and a cumulative priming manipulation to increase production of passive sentences. Experiment 2 examined the influence of event codability on formulation without a cuing manipulation. In both experiments, speakers showed an early preference for looking at the agent of the event when constructing active sentences. This preference was attenuated by event codability, suggesting that speakers were less likely to prioritize encoding of a single character at the outset of formulation in “easy” events than in “harder” events. Accessibility of the agent influenced formulation primarily when an event was “harder” to describe. Formulation of passive sentences in Experiment 1 also began with early fixations to the agent but changed with exposure to passive syntax: speakers were more likely to consider the patient as a suitable sentential starting point after cumulative priming. The results show that the message-to-language mapping in production can vary with the ease of encoding an event structure and of generating a suitable linguistic structure.

KW - Sentence Planning

KW - Incrementality

KW - Structural priming

KW - Eye-tracking

KW - Timecourse of sentence formulation

KW - Structural processing

U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2013.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2013.11.001

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 124

EP - 144

JO - Journal of Memory and Language

JF - Journal of Memory and Language

SN - 0749-596X

ER -