title: The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments.
abstract: Judgments of linguistic unacceptability may theoretically arise from either grammatical deviance or significant processing difficulty. Acceptability data are thus naturally ambiguous in theories that explicitly distinguish formal and functional constraints. Here, we consider this source ambiguity problem in the context of Superiority effects: the dispreference for ordering awh-phrase in front of a syntactically "superior"wh-phrase in multiplewh-questions, e.g.What did who buy?More specifically, we consider the acceptability contrast between such examples and so-called D-linked examples, e.g.Which toys did which parents buy?Evidence from acceptability and self-paced reading experiments demonstrates that (i) judgments and processing times for Superiority violations vary in parallel, as determined by the kind ofwh-phrases they contain, (ii) judgments increase with exposure while processing times decrease, (iii) reading times are highly predictive of acceptability judgments for the same items, and (iv) the effects of the complexity of thewh-phrases combine in both acceptability judgments and reading times. This evidence supports the conclusion that D-linking effects are likely reducible to independently motivated cognitive mechanisms whose effects emerge in a wide range of sentence contexts. This in turn suggests that Superiority effects, in general, may owe their character to differential processing difficulty.
authors.affiliation: Center for Research in Language, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, Telephone: (650)-387-6641.
authors.forename: Philip
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Hofmeister
authors.forename: T Florian
authors.initials: TF
authors.lastname: Jaeger
authors.forename: Inbal
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Arnon
authors.forename: Ivan A
authors.initials: IA
authors.lastname: Sag
authors.forename: Neal
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Snider
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1994 Sep;116(2):220-44
references.pmid: 7972591
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1993 Spring;5(2):196-214
references.pmid: 23972154
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Aug;68(1):1-76
references.pmid: 9775516
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2010 Aug;61(1):23-62
references.pmid: 20434141
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2006 Aug;55(2):157-166
references.pmid: 18209744
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Mar;29(2):111-23
references.pmid: 10709178
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1981 Sep;9(5):487-95
references.pmid: 7321867
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85
references.pmid: 11515286
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1986 Jan;14(1):64-78
references.pmid: 3713509
references.citation: Lang Cogn Process. 2011;26(3):376-405
references.pmid: 22675235
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1990 May;18(3):251-69
references.pmid: 2192233
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Sep;133(3):450-67
references.pmid: 15355149
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2009 Jan;37(1):1-9
references.pmid: 19103970
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Mar;58(2):250-71
references.pmid: 18922516
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):407-30
references.pmid: 17352621
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2005 May 6;29(3):375-419
references.pmid: 21702779
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Nov;27(6):1411-23
references.pmid: 11713876
references.citation: Language (Baltim). 2010 Jun;86(2):366-415
references.pmid: 22661792
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Oct;10(10):447-54
references.pmid: 16949330
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2009 Jul;33(5):752-93
references.pmid: 21585486
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 1996 Jan;25(1):93-115
references.pmid: 8789368
references.citation: Linguist Inq. 2006;37(1):51-68
references.pmid: 17356682
references.citation: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011 May;2(3):323-335
references.pmid: 26302080
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1982 Jun;111(2):228-38
references.pmid: 6213735
references.citation: Am J Psychol. 1988 Fall;101(3):357-69
references.pmid: 3177699
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Feb;106(2):707-29
references.pmid: 17532315
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49:199-227
references.pmid: 15012469
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):425-30
references.pmid: 12219808
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):544-76
references.pmid: 18729591
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 1993 Mar;22(2):273-86
references.pmid: 8366478
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):122-49
references.pmid: 1546114
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2005 Sep;51(2):141-78
references.pmid: 16095588
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1995 Apr;102(2):211-45
references.pmid: 7740089
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Mar;19(3):241-8
references.pmid: 18315796
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 1989 Jan;18(1):5-19
references.pmid: 2647962
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Nov;32(6):1304-21
references.pmid: 17087585
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):434-446
references.pmid: 19884961