Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-1 of 1
L. Robert Slevc
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2018) 49 (1): 181–194.
Published: 01 January 2018
FIGURES
Abstract
View article
PDF
Linguistic analyses suggest that there are two types of intransitive verbs: unaccusatives, whose sole argument is a patient or theme (e.g., fall ), and unergatives, whose sole argument is an agent (e.g., jump ). 1 Past psycholinguistic experiments suggest that this distinction affects how sentences are processed: for example, it modulates both comprehension processes ( Bever and Sanz 1997 , Friedmann et al. 2008 ) and production processes ( Kegl 1995 , Kim 2006 , M. Lee and Thompson 2004 , J. Lee and Thompson 2011 , McAllister et al. 2009 ). Given this body of evidence, it is reasonable to assume, as we do here, that this distinction is directly relevant to psycholinguistic theorizing. However, especially in production, exactly how this distinction affects processing is unknown, beyond the suggestion that unaccusatives somehow involve more complex processing than unergatives (see J. Lee and Thompson 2011 ). Here we examine how real-time planning processes in production differ for unaccusatives and unergatives. We build on previous studies on lookahead effects in sentence planning that show that verbs are planned before a deep object is uttered but not before a deep subject is uttered ( Momma, Slevc, and Phillips 2015 , 2016 ). (We use terms like deep subject in a theory-neutral fashion, with no intended commitment to a specific syntactic encoding.) This line of research sheds light on the broader issue of how the theory of argument structure relates to sentence production.
Includes: Supplementary data