| When is schematic participant information encoded? Evidence from eye-monitoring (2002) | |||||||||||||||||
Abstract | |||||||||||||||||
| Two eye-monit##(3 st-mon examined when unexpressedschemats parttssed informated specified by verbs is used duringsentgP( processing.Experiment 1 comparedtm processing ofsentC7VP wit passive and intV3qPfi)L7 verbs hypotVC7)Pfi t intotVC ornot intU7UPfi) respectfi)L7) anagent when then main clauses were preceded byeit7V agentUPfi)CLq(P ratntUP clauses or adverbial clause conton -P While tile were no di#erences in tP processing of passive clauses following ratowing andcont(C clauses,intes,PC3VV verb clauses elicitP anomalye#ect followingagentngP)3L(qP ratntng clauses. To detUUC37 whetUC tt source oftP( immediat)q available schemate partteP)C informat)C is lexically specified orinstVC derived solely fromconceptqP sourcesassociatV wit verbs,Experiment 2 comparedtr processing of clauseswit passive and middle verbs following ratowing clauses (e.g., To raise moneyfn the charity, the vase was/had sold quickly...).AltC##( bot passive and middle verb forms denot sitPUUL# tt logically require anagent middle verbs, which byhypotLPfi( donot lexically specify anagent elicitfi longer processingtroc tro passive verbs in measures of early processing. These result demonstPfi( tem partstPfi(C access andint)73L7 lexically encodedschematU partatU#q informat#q in tP process of recognizing a verb. # 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). Allright reserved. Keywords: Verb;SentP3L processing;Sentess intessing;P( n;Argument stmentfi( Event partntfi( t Eye-monitU(qqL ConstU(qqL n grammar Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 386--406 www.academicpress.com Journal of Memory and Language Correspondingaut#q# Fax: +716-645-3801. | |||||||||||||||||
Publication details | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||