Basque Word Orders, Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Research

Basque Word Orders, Psycholinguistic and

Neurolinguistic Research

Author: Kepa Erdozia

Advisor: Itziar Laka

Quote (Chomsky 1986: 3-4)

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?

TALK 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. PP-S-IO-O-V

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 dinner-PP] [Mikel-S] [Elena-IO] [the new belt-O] [given has-V]‘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 dinner-PP] [Mikel-S] [Elena-IO] [the new belt-O] [given has-V]‘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 Tales Play Narrative Total

SOV 66% 44% 61% 57%

SVO 23% 37% 31% 30%

OVS 5% 9% 5% 6%

OSV 2.5% 7% 1.5% 4%

VSO 3% 2% 1.5% 2.5%

VOS 0.5% 1% 0% 0.5%

Analyzed sentences

209 183 67 459

Addapted from De Rijk 1969: 16

De Rijk 1969

Following Greenberg: SOV

Statistical analysis: SOV

Relative clauses: SOV

Tales Play Narrative Total

SOV 66% 44% 61% 57%

SVO 23% 37% 31% 30%

OVS 5% 9% 5% 6%

OSV 2.5% 7% 1.5% 4%

VSO 3% 2% 1.5% 2.5%

VOS 0.5% 1% 0% 0.5%

Analyzed sentences

209 183 67 459

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 2001Otsoak ardia jan du

CP

T

C TP

AuxP

Aux

DPsub

v

vP

vP

AspP

VP Asp

DPobj V

OSV: Ardia otsoak jan duSOV

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

displaced the object to the topic position

[TopObjj [FocSubji [CPjan du]V-aux [TP ti tj tV-aux]]]

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 Uribe-Etxebarria 1994

Mary-ga sono hon-o yonda

Mary-S book that-O read-V

Japanese

Mirenek liburu hori irakurri du

Mary-S book that-O read-V

BasqueDeclaratives

Mary-wa nani-o yonda ka?

Mary-S what-O read-V Q-marker

Japanese

Zer irakurri du Mirenek?

What read-V Mary-S

BasqueInterrogatives

Ormazabal, Uriagereka and Uribe-Etxebarria 1994

In Basque interrogative sentences, the WH-word 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 spell-out 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 Subjet-Object-Verb

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

Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982

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: 4-5 years

Group 3: 5-6 years

Group 4: 6-7 years

Group 5: 7-8 years

Group 6: 10-11 years

Group 7: adults

Group 1: 3-4 years

Task: To represent the listened sentence with some toys

Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982

Zakurrak neska bota duNeska zakurrak bota du

Zakurrak bota du neskaNeska bota du zakurrak

4-5 y.o. 5-6 y.o. 6-7 y.o. 7-8 y.o. 10-11 y.o. adults3-4 y.o.

15 1

14 3

19 113 7

18 2 20 011 9 11 9

19 1 20 0

11 9 18 2 20 0

20 0

15 1

11 7

19 115 5

17 3 20 015 5 16 4

20 0 20 0

14 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

Reaction times

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 yes-or-no 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?)

Experiment 1: SOV-OSV

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) Age-range 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

Experiment 1: Material

Filler sentences consisted in one argument sentences

Manu futbolari bikaina da.

‘Manu is an excellent soccer player’.


Experiment 1: 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.

ExpectationsThe 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.

Experiment 1: Results

*

Reading time of two word orders

3500

3600

3700

3800

3900

4000

4100

4200

SOV OSV

Sentence Type

Tim

e (m

s)

p<0.005

Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score

•SOV order is processed faster than OSV order

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

cen

tag

e

p<0.001

Experiment 1: ResultsMean 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 (

ms

)

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

Experiment 2: 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’

Experiment 2: 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


Total Reading Time

4000

4500

5000

5500

SOV AMB OSV

Sentence Type

Tim

e (

ms)


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.

Experiment 3: Verb-Medial Sentences

Goal: To determine how the verb-medial 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):

SUBJECTsg-VERB-OBJECTsg

OBJECTsg-VERB-SUBJECTsg

SUBJECTpl-VERB-OBJECTpl

OBJECTpl-VERB-SUBJECTpl

AMBIGUOUS-VERB-AMBIGUOUS

100 filler sentences, the same for every list.

a. Gizonak ikusi du emakumea [Sak-V-Oa] Man-S see has woman-O

‘The man has seen the woman’

b. Emakumea ikusi du gizonak [Oa-V-Sak] Woman-O see has man-S

‘The man has seen the woman’

c. Gizonak ikusi ditu emakumeak [Amb-V-Amb] Man-X see has woman-X

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

d. Gizonek ikusi dituzte emakumeak [Sek-V-Oak] Men-S see have women-O ‘The men have seen the women’

e. Emakumeak ikusi dituzte gizonek [Oak-V-Sek] women-O see have men-S

‘The men have seen the women’


total reading times

2900

3100

3300

3500

3700

Sak-V-Oa Oa-V-Sak AMBak-V-AMBak Sek-V-Oak Oak-V-Sek

sentences type

tim

e (m

s)


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


COMPREHENSION TASK: TIME

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200


sentence type

tim

e (m

s)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


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)

Sak-V-Oa condition elicited fewest errors in the comprehension task



500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DP V Aux DP

sentence element

tim

e (

ms)

Sak-V-Oa

Oa-V-Sak

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 verb-medial sentences are derived



600

800

1000

1200

1400

DP V Aux DP

sentence element

tim

e (

ms)

Sek-V-Oak

Oak-V-Sek

There was no difference, suggesting that verb-medial sentences are derived



500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

DP V Aux DP

sentence element

tim

e (

ms)

Sek-V-Oak

AMBak-V-AMBak

P<0.008

Interaction between verb-auxiliary 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

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 verb-medial SVO and OVS word orders.

BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS SUGGEST THAT THE

CANONICAL WORD ORDER IS SOV IN BASQUE.

NEUROLINGUISTICS

Language is processed by means of biological mechanisms

Knowledge of Language:

Nature

Acquisition

Use

Neurolinguistics

“Linguists seek a characterization of the nature of linguistic knowledge;

psycholinguists are after modeling the algorithms that implement this knowledge

when language users speak and understand; and neurolinguists are

interested in neural mechanisms that realize these algorithms, and their

cerebral localization. ”(Grodzinsky 2003)

ERP Components Related to Language

Early Left Anterior Negativity

Left Anterior Negativity

N400

P600



Das Baby wurde gefüttertThe baby was fed

*Das Baby wurde im gefüttertThe baby was in the fed

Phrase Structure Violations


N400

P600

Hahne & Friederici 1999




N400

P600

S-O

O-S

Matzke et al 2002

Agreement and Case Violations

Object relatives vs Subject relatives

Object questions vs Subject questions

Word Order variation in German relatives: SOV vs OSV




N400

P600

Kutas & Van Petten 1988

Semantic Component




N400

P600

Matzke et al 2002

Syntactic Violations

Syntactic Reanalysis

To seek the different brain responses to different word orders

Experiment 4: ERP evidences

Goal:

4 conditions

Materials

Canonical SOV conditionNon Canonical OSV condition

Unambiguous

Temporally Ambiguous

Canonical SOV conditionNon Canonical OSV condition

Subject

Verb auxObject

Subject Verb aux

Object

‘the wolf has eaten the sheep’

otso-ak

wolf-the/Subj

Ardi-a

Sheep-the/Obj

jan

eaten

du

has

‘the wolves have eaten the sheep(pl)’

Otso-ek

Wolves/the/Subj

ardi-ak

sheep-the/Obj

jan

eaten

dituzte

have

Experiment 4: Non Ambiguous

SOV temporally ambiguous

OSV temporally ambiguous

‘the wolf has eaten the sheep(pl)’

Otso-ak

Wolf-X

ardi-ak

sheep-X

‘the wolf has eaten the sheep(pl)’

otso-ak

wolf-X

Ardi-ak

Sheep-X

jan

eaten

ditu

has

jan

eaten

ditu

has

Experiment 4: Ambiguous

1 question after each block of 8 sentences was presented.

Design

Experiment 4: Method

240 sentences per condition were created (Total = 960 sentences) 4 lists: material were divided in 4 lists in order to avoid sentence repetition across conditions (like in behavioral expes)

30 blocks: Each lists contained 30 blocks of 8 sentences (2 per condition). Sentences into blocks and blocks were mixed randomly every experimental session

Experimental sentences were automatically presented word by word in the middle of the screen (words 300 ms; intervals 200 ms)

At the end of each sentence participants were asked to blink, and a green dash informed that a new sentence was going to start

*ardiakGorbeiamendikolarretanotsoakjanditu

Free Blink

*

Experiment 4: ParticipantsMETHOD

Participants

24 neurologically healthy and right handed native speakers of Basque, mean age 26 (SD ± 4.7) years; 8 males and 18 females

Experiment 4: Analysis

Parasagital

Temporal

Midline

Anovas were established in three regions:

Factors were:

Sentence type (four conditions)

Hemisphere of electrodes

Anterior/Posterior positions


Behavioral Results

The behavioral data showed that participants performed well in the experiment. In the comprehension task they performed correctly in 91% of trials (SD = ± 7.8)

LAN 375-425 ms


OTSOEK ardiak jan dituzteARDIA otsoak jan du

SOVOSV

COMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES


Experiment 4: ResultsCOMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES

Otsoek ARDIAK jan dituzteArdia OTSOAK jan du

SOVOSV


Experiment 4: ResultsCOMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES

P600

Otsoek ardiak JAN dituzteArdia otsoak JAN du

SOVOSV

Experiment 4: ResultsCOMPARING AMBIGUOUS CHAINS

ARDIAK otsoak jan dituOTSOAK ardiak jan ditu

NothingSENTENCE FIRST POSITION

AMB-SOVAMB-OSV

SENTENCE SECOND POSITION

AMB-SOVAMB-OSV

Ardiak OTSOAK jan dituOtsoak ARDIAK jan ditu

Experiment 4: ResultsCOMPARING AMBIGUOUS CHAINS

Frontal Negativity

Otsoak ardiak JAN DITUArdiak otsoak JAN DITU

AMB-SOVAMB-OSV

Experiment 4: ResultsCOMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES AND AMBIGUOUS CHAINS

OTSOAK ardiak jan ditu [AMB]OTSOEK ardiak jan dituzte [SOV]

600-800 Temporal: ST x H, F(1,23) = 4.51 p(HF) < 0.05 ; ST x H x AP, F(2,46) =

8.88 p(HF) < 0.001

Total Reading Time

4000

4500

5000

5500

SOV AMB OSV

Sentence Type

Tim

e (

ms)

Experiment 2

900

1100

1300

1500

DP1 DP2 Verb Aux

Sentences Element

Tim

e (

ms

)

SOV

AMB

p<0.01

p<0.05n.s. n.s.

SOV vs AMB


ARDIAK otsoak jan ditu [AMB]ARDIA otsoak jan du [OSV]


-a vs –ek and –ak = LAN


SOV vs AMB-SOV

SOV vs AMB-OSV

Posterior positivity (P600)

Frontal Negativity

The differences observed in the comparison of the canonical non-ambiguous condition and both ambiguous conditions leads us to conclude that ambiguous chains are processed as canonical SOV sentences except when there is a disambiguating element which generates a revision of the syntactic structure

Verb Position

ERP RESULTS SUMMARY

a) LAN component in object first position.b) LAN-like component in subject second position.c) P600 component in verb position of OSV condition.

d) Nothing in ambiguously marked constituent positions.e) Frontal Negativity in verb and auxiliary position due to world knowledge disambiguated and syntactic reanalysis required condition

ERP EXPERIMENT SUGGESTS THAT THE CANONICAL

WORD ORDER IS SOV IN BASQUE.

UNAMBIGUOUS CONDITIONS

TEMPORALY AMBIGUOUS CONDITIONS

CONCLUSIONSPREVIOUS RESEARCH ON WORD ORDER IN BASQUE

BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS

ERP EXPERIMENT

Most linguists: SOV SOV

Antisymmetrists: SVO SOV

Basic word order Canonical word order

AcquisitionSOV/SVO

Earliest acquired word order

Experiment 1: In derived OSV a syntactic reanalysis processExperiment 2: Ambiguous chains are processed like SOV sentences

Experiment 3: Verb-medial sentences didn’t show differences indicating that they could be derived in Basque

Ergatives and absolutives are processed differently, LAN

Verb position of derived OSV required a syntactic reanalysis, P600Temporally ambiguous chains disambiguated by means of world knowledge and posterior syntactic reanalysis elicited a Frontal Negativity

Eskerrik asko

Documents

Basque Word Orders, Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Research