Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:16:30.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utilization of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues in the assignment of subject role in Arabic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Hassan A. Taman
Hassan A. Taman
Affiliation:
Alexandria University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of four cues in the assignment of actor role in Arabic was studied. These cues included animacy, case marking, gender agreement, and word order. The cues were set-in-a competing/converging fashion following the framework of the Competition Model of Bates and MacWhinney (1981, 1982, 1987). Fifty-four sentences representing all possible permutations of the cues were presented to 100 native speakers of Arabic, who were asked to identify the actor in each sentence. Subjects relied mainly on gender agreement and case marking in the assignment of the actor role. The results suggested that cue validity is very highly correlated with cue strength. It was also found that cues do not exhibit an additive nature, and that cross-linguistic formal similarities do not warrant similar processing strategies. Order of nouns tended to represent a “latent strategy” to be utilized only when other relevant cues were not available.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 299 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Backhouse, J. K. (1967). Statistics: An introduction to tests of significance. London: Spottiswoode, Ballantyne.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 190–214.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Gleitman, L. & Wanner, E. (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1990). Competition, variation, and language. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & Venza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. (1971). Abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Craik, F. I., & Lockport, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. (1978). Functional grammar. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
Dooling, D. J. (1972). Some context effects in the speeded comprehension of sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Cooper, W. & Walker, E. (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merill Garrett (pp. 55–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frankel, D. G., Amir, M., Frankel, E., & Arbel, T. (1980). A developmental study of the role of word order in comprehending Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankel, D. G. & Arbel, T. (1981). Developmental changes in assigning agent relations in Hebrew: The interaction between word order and structural cues. Journal of Experi-mental Child Psychology, 32, 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givon, T. (Ed.). (1980). Syntax and semantics: 12. Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kail, M. (1990). Cue validity, cue cost and processing types in French sentence comprehension. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Cooreman, A. (1987). Sentence interpretation strategies in adult Dutch-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinquistics, 8, 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Monk, D. (1972). Storage of complex information in memory: Some implications of the speed with which inferences can be made. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1980). Functional syntax. In Moravesik, E. & Wirth, J. (Eds.), Current approaches to syntax: Syntax and semantics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Thompson, H. (1977). Introducing cognitive grammar(Berkeley Linguistic Society no. 3).Google Scholar
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (Eds.). (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. (1990). The acquisition of category mapping. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1990). Competition and connectionism. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.) The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 442–457). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (Eds.). (1990). The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kleigl, S. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R., & McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Pleh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence comprehension in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1984). Semantic and syntactic processing cues used by first and second language learners of English, Dutch and German. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1987). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D., Hinton, G., & Williams, R. (1986). Learning internal representations by back propagation. In Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Vol. 1. Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. & Bates, E. (1987). Accessibility of case and gender contrasts for agent-object assignment in Broca's aphasic and fluent anomics. Brain and Language, 30, 8–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, S., & Mimica, I. (1984). Agrammatism in a case-inflected language. Brain and Language, 21, 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokolov, J. (1990). The development of role assignment in Hebrew. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sokolov, J. L. (1988). Cue validity in Hebrew sentence comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 15, 129–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taman, H. A. (1986). MIDS:A modular interactive system for disambiguating Arabic orthog-raphy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.Google Scholar