Download - EUSKAL PSIKOLINGUISTIKAPaul Pierre Broca (18241880) TAN: Brocaren gaixoaren burmuina ... central concern becomes knowledge of language: its nature, origins, and use. The answer to

EUSKAL PSIKOLINGUISTIKA

Kepa Erdozia

Euskal Filologiako Masterra 2009

www.elebilab.com

www.ehu.es/HEB/english_erdozia.htm

http://www.elebilab.com/

Gaurko Egitaraua:

Sarreratxo bat: Hizkuntza eta Burmuina

Sintaxi piska bat: Euskararen Hitz Hurrenkera

Jabekuntzazko esperimentuak

Irakurketa Denborak

Euskararen Hitz Hurrenkera Irakurketa Denboretan

Biharko Egitaraua:

NeuroIrudi Teknikak

fMRI

MEG

ERP

Euskararen Hitz hurrenkeraERP bidez

EUSKAL PSIKOLINGUISTIKA

BURMUINA, HISTORIA APUR BAT:

Aintzinatean Dualismoa: Burmuina vs. ArimaAlcmaeon (450 Ka) animalien gorputzak modelo bezala hartuta,

burmuina pentsamentuaren eta sentsazioen organoa zela esan zuen.

Aristotele (335 Ka): Pentsamentuaren organua bihotza. Burmuina beroa erregulatzeko. Pentsamentuaren oinarria ez da bihotza, baizik eta arima arrazionala (ez da materiala)

Zientzialariek aurrera darraite: Alejandriako bi biologo ospetsu, Herofilo eta Erasistrato (300 Ka) giza gortputzen disekzioan habilak zirenak inteligentzia burmuinean zegoela ondorioztatu zuten.

Galenok (170 Ka) memoria, emozioa, sentiduak eta ezagutza gogo-ahalmenak burmuinaren baitan zeudela esan zuen.

Erdi Aroan, eliza katolikoak anatomia ikerketak debekatu zituen eta burminaren azterketa eten egin zen


Descartes: burmuineko isurien mugimendu hidraulikoak animalien tankerako jokaera azaltzen du, baina ez gogoaren goimailako funtzioak (inteligentzia, sentimenduak)

Sistema duala proposatu zuen: Burmuina materiala da, gogoa aldiz ez. Gogoak gizakion pentsamentuak eta nahiak biltzen ditu.


Thomas Willisek 1664dean Cerebri Anatome idatzi zuen.Hemisferio, Lobulu, Neurologia moduko terminuak erabili

zituen.Burmuineko hemisferioek pentsamentua eta ekintzak

markatzen dituztela ondorioztatu zuen.Bere ikerketak burmuinaren atalen ikerketa funtzionalaren

oinarriak ezarri zituen

1,4 Kilo. Gurputzaren %1,5

22.000 milioi neurona

Gorputzaren energia kontsumoaren %20

a

BURMUINA

Estructura Citoarquitectonica

a

BURMUINA

Cortex

Gai Zuria

Gai GrisaGarun AzalaKortexa

BURMUINA

BURMUINA

Kortex SomatoSensoriala Kortex Motorea

Egiazko hizkuntza zer da?

Hizkuntza gizakion gaitasun biologikoa da, garapen aro bat daukana

Jaio aurretik hasten da hizkuntza garatzen gizakiongan

Jaiotzetiko hizkuntzaren garapena ez da nerabetasunaz geroztik ikasten den hizkuntza baten antzekoa

HIZKUNTZA

Nolakoa da hizkuntza?Kontzeptuak eta gertaerak (esanahia) hots edo keinu jakinekin (forma) lotzeko tresna sinbolikoa.

• Atal aldagaitzak eta aldakorrak dauzka.

• Ale diskretuduna, konbinatoriala da.• Mugatua da; haren ekoizpena

mugagabea da ordea.

HIZKUNTZA

Leonard Bloomfield 18871949

Haurrek amari imitatuz ikasten dute hizkuntza.

Noam Chomsky (1928)

Jabekuntzan imitazioa baino askoz gehiago dago;

haurrek berez ekartzen dute hizkuntzaren parte bat eratuta,

Gramatika Unibertsala dei dezakeguna, gizakion ondare biologikoaren parte dena.

Nola ikasten dugu hizkuntza?

HIZKUNTZA

Entzule unibertsalak!

Bizitzaren lehen-lehenengo hilabeteetan, inguruan ez dituzten eta gurasoek ezin

bereiz ditzaketen kontraste fonetikoak bereiz ditzakete haurrek!

Hamar hilabeteetatik aurrera, ordea, gaitasun hori galtzen dute, eta nork bere hizkuntzakoak diren fomena kontrasteak

baino ezin bereiz ditzake…

HIZKUNTZA

McGurk efektua: hizkuntza ikusi eta entzun egiten dugu.....

Paul Pierre Broca(18241880)

TAN: Brocaren gaixoaren burmuina

Patologia Linguistikoak: AFASIA

Carl Wernicke (18481904)Wernicke gaixo baten burmuina

a

BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAK

Ezker hemisferioko lobulo frontalean kalteak dituzten gaixoek aditzen arazo gehiago dituzte izenekin baino. Kaltea ezkerreko lobulu Temporalean badago arazo gehiago izan hoy dituzte izenekin aditzen baino.

Kaltea egitura morfosintaktiko konplexuak ekoiztea bada, ezkerreko esparru frontaletan izaten da kaltea (ad. Broca)

Perpaus mailan, egitura morfosintaktikoak ulertzeko kaltea esparru perisilvianoetan kokatu ohi da.

aditzak

izenak


MEG: Magneto Encephalography


a

fMRI: functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging


fMRI: functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging


ERP: Event Related brain Potentials


pipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipipiPUpipipipipipipipipipipipi

BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAKERP: Event Related brain Potentials

From Luck et al., 2000

BURMUINA: IKERKETA TEKNIKAKERP: Event Related brain Potentials

Elebitasuna bi hizkuntza erabiltzeko gaitasuna duen pertsona edo komunitatea adierazten duen fenomenoa da.

ZER DA ELEBITASUNA?

Elebitasunaren oinarri neurologikoak ikertzean, elebidun talde desberdinak interesatzen zaizkigu:

Hizkuntza dominanteak

Elebidun goiztiarrak/berantiarrak

Hizkuntzen arteko antzekotasunak

Jabekuntzan prozesuan, lehenengo hizkuntzak Ezker Hemisferioko esparru jakin batzutan lokalizatzeko joera erakusten du.

Bigarren eta hirugarren hizkuntzak ikasten ditugunean beste sustrato neural batzuetan lokalizatu ohi dira, topografikoki eremu zabalagoak eta ez horren espezifikoak

(Kim et al. 1997, Dehaene et al. 1997).

ELEBITASUNA BURMUINEANElebitasunaren sustrato neuralak

BERANTIARRAK GOIZTIARRAK

Kim et al. 1997. Nature

ELEBITASUNA BURMUINEAN

Intersubject variability in the cortical representation of language is greater in L2 than in L1. Dehaene et al. 1997

ELEBITASUNA BURMUINEAN

Goizean ogia erosi dut nik dendan.Goizean ogia erosi dut *ni dendan.

Zawisezwki 2007

ELEBIDUNAKEuskaraEspainolaL1 Euskara – L2 Espainola

L1 Espainola – L2 Euskera

EMAITZAK:L1 Euskara = P600L2 Euskara = P600 EZ

ONDORIOA:Ergatibo = jabekuntza goiztiarra

aEUSKAL ELEBIDUNEN BURMUINA

Mikelen arrebek egunkaria saskian ekarri dute kioskotikMikelen arrebek *egunkariek saskian ekarri dute kioskotik

Diaz, Erdozia, Mueller, Laka, Sebastian, submitted

EMAITZA:L1 Euskara = P600

ONDORIOA:Ergatibo = jabekuntza goiztiarra

aEUSKAL ELEBIDUNEN BURMUINA

EUSKAL HITZ HURRENKERA

Quote (Chomsky 1986: 34)

The study of generative grammar represented a significant shift of focus in the approach to problems of language. Put in the simplest terms, to be elaborated below, the shift of focus was from behavior or the products of behavior to states of the mind/brain that enter into behavior. If one chooses to focus attention on this latter topic, the central concern becomes knowledge of language: its nature, origins, and use.

The answer to the first question is given by a particular generative grammar, a theory concerned with the state of the mind/brain of the person who knows a particular language. The answer to the second is given by a specification of UG along with an account of the ways in which its principles interact with experience to yield a particular language; UG is a theory of the “initial state” of the language faculty, prior to any linguistic experience. The answer to the third question would be a theory of how the knowledge of language attained enters into the expressions of thought and the understanding of presented specimens of language, and derivatively, into communication and other special uses of language.

The three basic questions that arise, then, are these:(1) (i) What constitutes knowledge of language?

(ii) How is knowledge of language acquired?(iii) How is knowledge of language put to use?

PLANNING

What constitutes knowledge of language?

How is knowledge of language acquired?

How is knowledge of language put to use?

Linguistic research about word order in Basque

How the children acquire word order in Basque

How humans use their knowledge of language to generate and process word orders in Basque

Free Word Ordera. PPSIOOV

Free Word Ordera. PP S IO O V[Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio]

Free Word Ordera. PP S IO O V[Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio][After dinnerPP] [MikelS] [ElenaIO] [the new beltO] [given hasV]‘After dinner, Mikel has given the new belt to Elena’

5 constituent sentence; P5 = 120 sentences.

Nearly, all constituent permutation are grammatical in Basque

d. IO V O PP S[Elenari] [oparitu dio] [gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek]

e. ...

c. S O PP V IO[Mikelek] [gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [oparitu dio] [Elenari]

b. O PP IO S V[Gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [Elenari] [Mikelek] [oparitu dio]

a. PP S IO O V[Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio][After dinnerPP] [MikelS] [ElenaIO] [the new beltO] [given hasV]‘After dinner, Mikel has given the new belt to Elena’

Free Word Order

Previous Research on Word Order in Basque

Generative GrammarSOV (De Rijk 1969, Eguzkitza 1986, Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Laka 1990, Artiagoitia 1995, Fernandez 1998, A. Elordieta 2001, Arregi 2001 among others …)


Generative GrammarSOV (De Rijk 1969, Eguzkitza 1986, Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Laka 1990, Artiagoitia 1995, Fernandez 1998, A. Elordieta 2001, Arregi 2001 among others …)

SVO (Ormazabal et al 1994, G. Elordieta 1997, Haddican 2004)

Informational and Statistical approaches

Experimental Psycholinguistics: language acquistion

Osa 1990, Hidalgo 1994, Aldezabal et al 2003

Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982

De Rijk 1969

Statistical analysis: SOV

45967183209Analyzed sentences

0.5%0%1%0.5%VOS

2.5%1.5%2%3%VSO

4%1.5%7%2.5%OSV

6%5%9%5%OVS

30%31%37%23%SVO

57%61%44%66%SOV

TotalNarrativePlayTales

Addapted from De Rijk 1969: 16

De Rijk 1969

Following Greenberg: SOV

Statistical analysis: SOV

Relative clauses: SOV

45967183209Analyzed sentences

0.5%0%1%0.5%VOS

2.5%1.5%2%3%VSO

4%1.5%7%2.5%OSV

6%5%9%5%OVS

30%31%37%23%SVO

57%61%44%66%SOV

TotalNarrativePlayTales

Addapted from De Rijk 1969: 16

Postpositions V>Aux

NP

NP NP

Y Y Verb

Ortiz de Urbina 1989

Subject/Object asymetries

In the hierarchical configuration of Basque subjects are hierarchically higher than objects

INFL

INFL’’

INFL’Otsoak

VP’’

ardia V’

jan

duOtsoak ardia jan du

Ortiz de Urbina 1989Otsoak ardia jan du Ardia otsoak jan du

INFL

INFL’’

INFL’Otsoak

VP’’

ardia V’

jan

du

Ortiz de Urbina 1989Otsoak ardia jan du Ardia otsoak jan du

INFL’

VP’’ INFL

V’

tk

ti

tj

INFL’’

CP

otsoaki

ardiaj

C’

C

jan duk

CP

INFL

INFL’’

INFL’Otsoak

VP’’

ardia V’

jan

du

A. Elordieta 2001

Otsoak ardia jan duCP

T

C TP

AuxP

Aux

DPsub

v

vP

vP

AspP

VP Asp

DPobj V

OSV: Ardia otsoak jan duSOV

a) Displaced the object to the left periphery and focus insitu

b) Diplaced the subject to focus position and the verb to CP position; and

displaced the object to the topic position[TopObjj [FocSubji [CPjan du]Vaux [TP ti tj tVaux]]]

[TopObjj [TP Subj tj jan du]]

Antisymmetry (Kayne 1994, 2004)

Kayne: syntactic structure is universally and without exceptions of the form S[pecifier]H[ead]C[omplement]. The complement of a head invariably follows that head. The associated specifier invariably precedes both head and complement (2004: 3)

XP

HeadSpecifier Complement

Kayne: The question is whether Japanese [Basque] objects ever surface within VP, in complement position of V. Antisymmetry says no, given OV order (2004: 5)

All languages are based generated as SVO

Ormazabal, Uriagereka and UribeEtxebarria 1994

Maryga sono hono yonda

MaryS book thatO readV

Japanese

Mirenek liburu hori irakurri du

MaryS book thatO readV

BasqueDeclaratives

Marywa nanio yonda ka?

MaryS whatO readV Qmarker

Japanese

Zer irakurri du Mirenek?

What readV MaryS

BasqueInterrogatives

Ormazabal, Uriagereka and UribeEtxebarria 1994

In Basque interrogative sentences, the WHword raises the CP leaving behind the IP

CP

C

IP

tIP

C’In declarative sentences, IP moves to the specifier position of CP in the both languages

Neuter SOV order two possibilities

CP

C

WH

IP

C’

a) Before the movement of IP to CP, move the verb to C

b) Extract the arguments from the IP which is in CP

G. Elordieta 1997

CP

VP

T

DP V’

C

ModP

NegPMod

TP

Neg

DPV

a) In functional projections above the VP

How derived SOV order:

b) Agreement features are present in the verb from the start of the numeration and languages choose whether to spellout or not morphologically

Otsoak jan du ardiaSVO

Haddican 2004

CaseP

VP

Case’Zorraki

ordaindu ti

Declarative sentences: V>Aux

Negative sentences: Neg>Aux>V

Polarity Phrase (PolP)

From VO to OV

PolP

TP

Aux T’

Mod(evid)P

Mod(evid)’

Pol’

omen

!VP

Zorrak ordaindu

T tm

But, his system allowed focus construction which are ungrammatical

*JONEK Miren ikusi du

Word Order and Comunicative Abilities (Osa 1990)

The canonical word order in Basque is SubjetObjectVerb

a) Less presupositions are elicited by SOV

b) Prosodically flat

c) It replies to a What happened? question

d) All the sentence could be new information

Functionalist point of view

Informational structures of Focus provide word order variability

Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994)

Source: Hidalgo 1994

XVIIth Century

Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion




XIXth Century



Popular oral tales collections





Oral testimony from 1994

The Hidalgo’s statistical research continues but he changed the sentence selection criterion and then the sentences are not the same sentences that we followed in our research.

Word Order and Statistics (Aldezabal et al. 2003)

The corpus of the Euskaldunon Egunkaria (from January 1999 to May 2000)14,557 declarative sentences where 512 sentences had spelled out the subject, the object and the verb

Source: Aldezabal et al. 2003

Participants: 7 Groups of different age people

Aim: to analyze the Acquisition of different structures in Basque, and the processing strategies of these structures

Group 2: 45 years

Group 3: 56 years

Group 4: 67 years

Group 5: 78 years

Group 6: 1011 years

Group 7: adults

Group 1: 34 years

Task: To represent the listened sentence with some toys

Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982

Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982

Zakurrak neska bota duNeska zakurrak bota du

Zakurrak bota du neskaNeska bota du zakurrak

45 y.o. 56 y.o. 67 y.o. 78 y.o. 1011 y.o. adults34 y.o.

15 114 3

19 113 7

18 2 20 011 9 11 9

19 1 20 011 9 18 2 20 0

20 0

15 111 7

19 115 5

17 3 20 015 5 16 4

20 0 20 014 6 20 0 19 1

20 0

Subject first sentences were comprehended well

Object first sentences were comprehended worse untill the age of 8

It seems that younger children understood the first constituent as subject and the second as object

INTERNAL SUMMARY 1

GENERATIVE GRAMMAR

Most linguists:

Basic word order Canonical word order

SOV SOV

Antisymmetrists: SVO SOV

FUNCTIONALISTS: SOV

STATISTIC RESEARCH:

De RijkHidalgoAldezabal et al

PSYCHOLINGUISTICS (ACQUISTION):

SOV

SOV

SOV/SVO

SVO


Most frequent word order

Earliest acquired word order

Quote:

“Just as the theory of grammar has as its goals an account of Universal Grammar and parameters of language variation, the theory of sentence

processing has as its goal the characterization of the universal parser, the human sentence processing mechanism” Sekerina 2003: 302

Psycolinguistics Tecnique in Syntax

Participants perform the experiment at their own pace.

To move from one element to the next element, participants had to press the space bar of the computer keyboard, one press for each element. Thus, participants decided the time they needed in order to process each element of the sentence, and therefore they decide the time they needed to comprehend the whole sentence.

SELF PACED READING MOVING WINDOW

Psycholinguistic Experiments in Basque: Method

The comprehension task allowed us to be sure that participants had understood the sentences they read. The task consisted in a yesorno question after each sentence. The answer of half of questions of each word order was “yes” and the other half was “no”.

COMPREHENSION TASK

***** ***** ***** *****

Emakumeak ***** ***** ***** (The woman)

***** gizona ***** *****(the man)

***** ****** ikusi ***** (seen)

***** ****** ***** du(has)

Egia al da emakume batek gizon bat ikusi duela?

(Is it true that a woman has seen a man?)

SOVOSV

Goal: to determine whether OSV sentences have a higher processing cost than SOV sentences:

(a) longer reading times

(b) comprehension problems

23 participants (13 w and 10 m) Agerange was 18 to 36 (mean 25; SD ± 5).

Participants

Materials32 sentences in SOV and 32 sentences in OSV. 2 lists: 16 SOV and 16 OSV sentences per condition. 32 fillers (the same for two lists). Experimental conditions and fillers contained 4 words

emakume-ak gizon-a ikus-i du

woman-the/Subj. man-the/Obj. seen has

‘the woman has seen the man’

gizon-a emakume-ak ikus-i du

man-the/Obj. woman-the/Subj. seen has

‘the woman has seen the man’

Subject

Object

Verb Aux

Subject

Object

Verb Aux

Materials

Filler sentences consisted in one argument sentences

Manu futbolari bikaina da.‘Manu is an excellent soccer player’.

Materials

Recording

Recording

The EXPE6 (Pallier et al. 1997) recorded the reaction times and the answers of the participants:

(i) time to read each word of the sentence(ii) the time to perform the comprehension task (read and answer)(iii) whether the answer to the question is correct or not.

Expectations

The derived OSV word order sentences(i) would require longer reading time(ii) would require longer reading time in the comprehension task(iii) would induce more errors in the comprehension task.

SOV vs. OSV: Results

Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score

•SOV order is processed faster than OSV order

Reading time of two word orders

3500

36003700

3800

3900

40004100

4200

SOV OSV

Sentence Type

Tim

e (m

s)

p<0.005

Reaction Times of Comprehension Task

2300235024002450250025502600265027002750

SOV OSV

Senteces Type

Tim

es (m

s)

p<0.002

Reaction Times in the Comprehension Task

• Questions about OSV word order elicited longer reading time


•OSV order elicited more errors than SOV order

Errors in the Comprehension Task

Comprehension Task: Errors

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%

SOV OSV

Sentence Type

Per

cent

age

p<0.001


Mean reading times Word by Word

Unmarked form processed faster than marked OSV requires a reanalysis of syntactic structure at subject position

Reading Times Word by Word

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

DP DP Vb Aux

Sentence Element

Tim

e (m

s)

sov

osv

p<0.05

p<0.01

p<0.05p<0.05

interaction between first two DPs of the sentences F = 12.9; p < 0.002


Ambiguous Chains

Goal: to determine how the ambiguous chains were processing and how the syntactic disambiguation happened.

(a) whether ambiguous chains were processed as canonical SOV sentences

(b) syntactic disambiguation elicited a syntactic reanalysis of the sentences

MORPHOLOGICAL AMBIGUITY

OBJECT PLURAL

SUBJECT SINGULAR

EMAKUME-AK‘WOMAN-X’

Emakume-ak gizon-ak ikusi ditu woman-X man-X see has

‘The woman has seen the men’ o ‘The man has seen the women’

MethodMETHOD

Participants23 subjects (3 man and 20 woman; mean age 20.4, SD = 2.5).

MaterialsThree conditions (48 sentences per condition):

Three lists: one version of each item was assigned to one of the two listsList 1: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences)List 2: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences)List 3: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences)

48 filler sentences, the same for every list.

SOV condition

OSV condition

AMB condition

As in the previous experiment

The new condition

Emakume-ek gizon-ak ikus-i dituzte

women the Subj. men the Obj. seen have

‘the women have seen the men’

Emakume-ak gizon-ak ikus-i ditu woman-X man-X seen has‘the woman has seen the men’ or ‘the man has seen the women’

Gizon-ak emakume-ek ikus-i dituzte

man-X women-the Subj. seen have

‘the women have seen the men’

Subject

Object

Verb+aux

Subject

Object

Verb+aux

Ambiguous Chain

Ambiguous Chains: Material

Total Reading Time

4000

4500

5000

5500

SOV AMB OSV

Sentence Type

Tim

e (

ms)

Ambiguous Chains: Results

n.s.

p<0.001

Ambiguous chain is processed as SOV sentence



The objects are processed faster than subjects

At subject second position, the reanalysis of the structure

SOV vs OSV, word by word

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

DP1 DP2 Verb Aux

Sentence Element

Tim

e (

ms

)

SOV

OSV

p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.001p<0.001

interaction between first two DPs of the sentences F=17,137; p<0.001)


No evidences of syntactic reanalysis. No interaction

Ambiguous chains are processed as SOV order sentencesSOV is the simplest processing solution.

SOV vs AMB, word by word

900

1100

1300

1500

DP1 DP2 Verb Aux

Sentences Element

Tim

e (

ms

)

SOV

AMB

p<0.01p<0.05n.s. n.s.

VerbMedial Sentences

Goal: To determine how the verbmedial sentences were processing. These sentences are considered derived by linguists

Participants24 participants (2 men, 22 women; mean age 20, DS ± 3.21)

MaterialsFive conditions (100 sentences per condition):

SUBJECTsgVERBOBJECTsg

OBJECTsgVERBSUBJECTsg

SUBJECTplVERBOBJECTpl

OBJECTplVERBSUBJECTpl

AMBIGUOUSVERBAMBIGUOUS

100 filler sentences, the same for every list.

a. Gizonak ikusi du emakumea [SakVOa] ManS see has womanO

‘The man has seen the woman’

b. Emakumea ikusi du gizonak [OaVSak] WomanO see has manS

‘The man has seen the woman’

c. Gizonak ikusi ditu emakumeak [AmbVAmb] ManX see has womanX

‘The man has seen the women’ or ‘The woman has seen the men’

d. Gizonek ikusi dituzte emakumeak [SekVOak] MenS see have womenO ‘The men have seen the women’

e. Emakumeak ikusi dituzte gizonek [OakVSek] womenO see have menS

‘The men have seen the women’

SVO vs. OVS Material

total reading times

2900

3100

3300

3500

3700

SakVOa OaVSak AMBakVAMBak SekVOak OakVSek

sentences type

time

(ms)

SVO vs. OVS Results

The sentences in singular were processed faster than the sentences in plural and the ambiguous chains (p<0.001).

There were no differences between SVO and OVS sentences; thus we considered the two structures derived.


n.s.

n.s. n.s.

p<0.001

SVO vs. OVS Results

COMPREHENSION TASK: TIME

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200


sentence type

time

(ms)

Reaction Times in the Comprehension Task

Differences between the singular sentences and the remainning conditions

p<0.001

p<0.007

p<0.01

No differences between the plural conditions

SVO vs. OVS Results

comprehension task: errors

0123456789


sentence type

erro

rs (/

20)

Errors in the Comprehension Task

Ambiguous condition elicited most errors in the comprehension task (p<0.001 comparing to any condition)

SakVOa condition elicited fewest errors in the comprehension task

SVO vs. OVS ResultsMean reading times Word by Word


500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DP V Aux DP

sentence element

tim

e (m

s)

SakVOa

OaVSak

n.s. n.s. n.s.p<.025

The object was read faster than the subject

But, there was not any other difference, suggesting that verbmedial sentences are derived

SVO vs. OVS: ResultsMean reading times Word by Word


600

800

1000

1200

1400

DP V Aux DP

sentence element

tim

e (m

s)

SekVOak

OakVSek

There was no difference, suggesting that verbmedial sentences are derived

SVO vs. OVS: ResultsMean reading times Word by Word


500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

DP V Aux DP

sentence element

time

(ms)

SekVOak

AMBakVAMBak

P<0.008

Interaction between verbauxiliary and sentence type. (F=5,924 p<.02)

The fact that the sentences’ first argument is considered the subject of the sentences could explain the differences between the SVO and the OVS without postulating that one of them (SVO/OVS) is more basic than the other

Total Reading Times

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

SOV OSV SVO OVS

Sentence Type

Tim

e (m

s)

SOVOSV: p<.02

SVOOSV: p<.005

OVSOSV: p<.002.

No differences between SOV, SVO and OVS sentences

COMPARING SOV AND SVO

SOV vs OSV

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

DP1 DP2 Verb Aux

Sentences Element

Tim

e (m

s)

SOV

OSV

SVO vs OVS

500

600700

800

900

10001100

1200

DP1 DP2 Verb Aux

Sentence Element

Tim

e (m

s)

SVO

OVS

Interaction (F=18,366; p<.001)

p<.001

p<.005

No Interaction

p<.005

COMPARING SOV AND SVO

ELEBIDUNEN PROZESAMENDUA

SakOaV OaSakV AMBAMBV SekOakV OakSekV3000

3500

4000

4500

Canonical vs. Derived (nonnatives)

Sentences Types

Tim

e (m

s)NonNative Speakers (AoA= 3): Results

Mean reading times

DP1 DP2 V Aux600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Word by Word (nonnatives)

SakOaVOaSakVAMBAMBVSekOakVOakSekV

Element of Sentence

Tim

e (m

s)

Mean reading times Word by Word

NonNative Speakers (AoA= 3): Results

BEHAVIORAL RESULTS

a) SOV word order is processed faster and easier than OSV.

b) Object is read faster than the subject

c) OSV sentences require a syntactic reanalysis at subject position

d) Ambiguous chains were processed as canonical SOV.

e) No difference was found in verbmedial SVO and OVS word orders.

BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS SUGGEST THAT THE

CANONICAL WORD ORDER IS SOV IN BASQUE.

f) Nonnative speakers (AoA=3) behave like Native Speakers.

BIHAR GEHIAGO

Kepa Erdozia

www.elebilab.com