No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Lexical Information of Persian Transitive Verbs during Sentence Comprehension
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Abstract
This article investigates the nature of lexical information in the lexical entries of Persian transitive verbs. In the first experiment transitive verbs were categorized into five groups. What differentiates them is the number of argumental structural and subcategorization frame options of each verb. The question is: which one is more fundamental in sentence processing? In the second test the question is whether the number of argument(s) and complement(s) in each option determines processing time. Twenty normal native speakers of Farsi participated in these tests, divided into two groups. Cross-modal lexical decision method was used here. Using the DMDX software program the tests were performed and using t-tests the data were analyzed. The results of the first test show that both the argumental structure and subcategorization frame possibilities of the verb can affect sentence processing time. Also the important role of the number of the complement(s) needed for a specific verb has been indicated by the second test results. Overall results show that the verb type of a sentence and sentence syntactic complexity determine the processing time. This has some implications for teaching Farsi to foreign language learners for whom knowing more verbs leads to making more grammatical sentences.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2013 The International Society for Iranian Studies
References
1 “Send” has two argumental structure options and three subcategorization frame options, while “donate” has two argumental structure options and two subcategorization frame options shown as: “send”: (x,y) / (x,y,z) send: [-NP NP], [-NP PP], [-NP] “donate”: (x,y,z) / (x,y) donate: [-NP, PP], [-NP].
2 Damasio, A.R. and Tranel, D., “Nouns and Verbs are Retrieved with Differently Distributed Neural Systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 90, no. 11 (1993): 4958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Collina, S., Garbin, G., and Tabossi, P., “The Role of Argument Structure in the Processing of Noun and Verbs: An f-MRI Study,” Brain and Language 103, no. 1 (2007): 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In linguistics, argument refers to any of the noun phrases in a clause related to the verb. Typically, the subject, direct and indirect objects are arguments of verbs.
4 Based on a general idea in syntax, verbs and their arguments are part of our mental lexicon. Components of a sentence are verb arguments of that sentence. Verbs give theta roles to each argument of their own. The verb and its arguments determine the propositional meaning of a sentence. Occurrence of a verb with its special theta roles of its own is called argumental structure. A subcategorization frame has been introduced to syntax to avoid problems caused by simple phrase structure rules (e.g. VP: V (NP) (PP)) which could overgenerate and produce ungrammatical and meaningless sentences like: *The man thinks you. It is a part of a verb mental representation including components which can occur within the VP in which the verb is the head. “Think,” for example, subcategorizes for [-CP] complement and [-PP] one. Chomsky, Noam, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chomsky, Noam, Lectures on Government and Binding (Dordrecht, 1981).Google Scholar
5 Collina, S., Marangolo, P., and Tabossi, P., “The Role of Argument Structure in the Production of Nouns and Verbs,” Neuropsychologia 39, no. 11 (2001): 1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Collina et al., “The Role of Argument Structure in the Processing of Noun and Verbs,” 72.
7 Bonakdarpour, B., Thompson, C.K. and Fix, S.C., “Neural Signatures of Verb Argument Structure in Agrammatic Aphasic and Aged-Matched Individuals,” Brain and Language 103, no. 1 (2007): 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 de Bleser, R. and Kauschke, C., “Acquisition and Loss of Nouns and Verbs: Parallel or Divergent Patterns?,” Journal of Neurolinguistics 16, no. 6 (2003): 515–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fernandez, B. et al., “Functional MRI Follow-up Study of Language Processes in Healthy Subjects and during Recovery in a Case of Aphasia,” Stroke 35, no. 9 (2004): 2171–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. Jonkers and R. Bastiaanse, “How Selective are Selective Word Class Deficits? Two Case Studies of Action and Object Namig,” Aphasiology 12 (1998): 245–56; Kim, M. and Thompson, C.K., “Verb Deficits in Alzheimer Disease and Agrammatism: Implications for Lexical Organization,” Brain and Language 16, no. 2 (2004): 151–67Google Scholar, Luzzatti, C. et al., “Verb–Noun Double Dissociation in Aphasic Lexical Impairments: The Role of Word Frequency and Imageability,” Brain and Language. 81, no. 1 (2002): 432–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Shapiro, L.P., Hack, N., and Killackey, J., “Verb Argument Processing in Complex Sentences in Broca's and Wernicke's Aphasia,” Brain and Language 45 (1993): 423–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapiro, L.P., Zurif, E., and Grimshaw, J., “Verb Processing during Sentence Comprehension: Contextual Impenetrability,” Journal of Psycholinguist Research 18 (1989): 223–43Google Scholar; L.P. Shapiro, E. Zurif, and J. Grimshaw, “Sentence Processing and the Mental Representation of Verbs,” Cognition 27 (1987): 219–46. Shapiro (1990)
10 Shapiro et al., “Sentence Processing and the Mental Representation of Verbs,” 228.
11 Shapiro et al., “Sentence Processing and the Mental Representation of Verbs.”