Language, Cognition and Neuroscience ISSN: 2327-3798 (Print) 2327-3801 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/plcp21 Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal Elisabeth Norcliffe, Agnieszka E. Konopka, Penelope Brown & Stephen C. Levinson To cite this article: Elisabeth Norcliffe, Agnieszka E. Konopka, Penelope Brown & Stephen C. Levinson (2015) Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30:9, 1187-1208, DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1006238 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1006238 Published online: 17 Feb 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 75 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=plcp21 Download by: [Max Planck Institut Fur Psycholinguistik] Date: 05 November 2015, At: 06:45 Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2015 Vol. 30, No. 9, 1187–1208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1006238 Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal Elisabeth Norcliffea*, Agnieszka E. Konopkab,c, Penelope Browna and Stephen C. Levinsona,c,d aLanguage and Cognition Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands; bPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands; cDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Kapittelweg 29, 6252 EN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; dLinguistics Department, Radboud University, Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT Nijmegen, The Netherlands The scope of planning during sentence formulation is known to be flexible, as it can be influenced by speakers’ communicative goals and language production pressures (among other factors). Two eye-tracked picture description experiments tested whether the time course of formulation is also modulated by grammatical structure and thus whether differences in linear word order across languages affect the breadth and order of conceptual and linguistic encoding operations. Native speakers of Tzeltal [a primarily verb–object–subject (VOS) language] and Dutch [a subject–verb–object (SVO) language] described pictures of transitive events. Analyses compared speakers’ choice of sentence structure across events with more accessible and less accessible characters as well as the time course of formulation for sentences with different word orders. Character accessibility influenced subject selection in both languages in subject-initial and subject- final sentences, ruling against a radically incremental formulation process. In Tzeltal, subject-initial word orders were preferred over verb-initial orders when event characters had matching animacy features, suggesting a possible role for similarity-based interference in influencing word order choice. Time course analyses revealed a strong effect of sentence structure on formulation: In subject-initial sentences, in both Tzeltal and Dutch, event characters were largely fixated sequentially, while in verb-initial sentences in Tzeltal, relational information received priority over encoding of either character during the earliest stages of formulation. The results show a tight parallelism between grammatical structure and the order of encoding operations carried out during sentence formulation. Keywords: incrementality; message formulation; sentence formulation; cross-linguistic comparisons of sentence production; verb-initial languages To produce an utterance, speakers must transform an sentences in Tzeltal, a Mayan language with VOS basic abstract thought into a linearly ordered sequence of words word order, and we compare the formulation process to that conforms to the grammatical constraints of the target Dutch, a language with subject–verb–object (SVO) basic language. According to most models of sentence produc- word order. Our goal is to test whether and how differences tion (e.g., Levelt, 1989), the first stage of this process in the linear ordering of constituents in a sentence affect the involves formulating a message, a non-verbal representa- temporal order by which message-level and sentence-level tion of the information speakers want to express. This increments are planned. In doing so, we present the first message must then undergo linguistic encoding: Speakers study of sentence formulation in a verb-initial language, must select and retrieve suitable words to express the and broach a critical, yet underexplored, theoretical ques- individual concepts of the message and must integrate them tion in production research: to what extent are the into a syntactic structure. Subsequently, speakers retrieve processing routines involved in sentence production affec- phonological information in preparation for articulation. ted by the grammatical properties of individual languages? Language production thus involves a fundamental Downloaded by [Max Planck Institut Fur Psycholinguistik] at 06:45 05 November 2015 linearisation of complex hierarchical structures. Yet lan- guages vary widely in their ‘basic word order’, the most Incrementality and planning scope frequent and unmarked order of subject, object and verb in Producing a sentence takes time. It is generally agreed that a basic transitive clause. Amongst the rarer word orders, speakers do not wait until processing is completed at all some 5% of languages put the verb first and the subject last levels of production prior to initiating speech. Instead, most [verb–object–subject (VOS) order]. In this paper we production models assume that planning proceeds incre- examine how the time course of the sentence production mentally (Ferreira & Swets, 2002; Kempen & Hoenkamp, process is influenced by the word order and associated 1987; Levelt, 1989): As a unit (or increment) of informa- grammatical properties of the target language. Specifically, tion becomes available at one level of processing, it triggers we investigate the processes involved in producing processing at the next level in the system, potentially all the *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis 1188 E. Norcliffe et al. way down to articulation. In addition, as one increment (e.g., a word or phrase) is passed down to the next level of encoding, speakers may already begin planning the next increment. An incremental system of this kind makes sense in terms of both communicative and processing efficiency: Incrementality is argued to help to maintain fluency by allowing speech to be initiated without being preceded by long pauses and to reduce processing costs by allowing speakers to produce already-formulated pieces of an utterance instead of buffering them in working memory Figure 1. What is happening here? until the rest of the utterance is prepared. A crucial question then is how large these planning units or increments actually are. Studies of planning scope order of word retrieval (with planning of determiners such to date have focused on the planning of simple and as a or the) is determined by the availability of individual conjoined noun phrases (e.g., the arrow and the bag; concepts in a message, and the structure of the developing Meyer, 1996; Smith & Wheeldon, 2001), modified noun sentence is accordingly constrained by whichever word is phrases (e.g., the blue cup; Brown-Schmidt & Konopka, retrieved first. Thus, theories that ascribe a pivotal role to 2008; Brown-Schmidt & Tanenhaus, 2006) and transitive lexical items in sentence production (Bock, 1982; Kempen event descriptions (e.g., The woman is chasing the & Hoenkamp, 1987; Levelt, 1989) suggest that linearisa- chicken; Griffin & Bock, 2000; Konopka & Meyer, tion is driven largely by factors influencing the accessib- 2014; Kuchinsky & Bock, 2010; Van de Velde, Meyer, ility of individual message entities. & Konopka, 2014). In studies of noun phrase production, Effects of accessibility on sentence form are among the planning scope is normally operationalised in terms of the most robust cross-linguistic findings: Speakers systemat- number of words activated before speech onset. In studies ically make structural choices that allow them to position of more complex sentence production, the emphasis is accessible information earlier in sentences. Accessibility primarily on the selection of starting points (Bock, Irwin, may depend, for example, on a referent’s perceptual & Davidson, 2004; MacWhinney, 1977): When construct- salience and can be enhanced by exogenous, attention- ing a message and preparing to convey this information grabbing cues (Gleitman, January, Nappa, & Trueswell, linguistically, what do speakers encode first? Different 2007; Ibbotson, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2013; Myachykov accounts of incrementality in production make different & Tomlin 2008; Tomlin, 1995, 1997). Referents can also predictions in this regard, drawing on key theoretical differ in conceptual accessibility, including features such distinctions in how lexical and structural processes can be as imageability (Bock & Warren, 1985), givenness coordinated during formulation. We review two accounts (Arnold, Wasow, Losongco, & Ginstrom, 2000) and in this article and then outline a cross-linguistic compar- animacy (Bock, Loebell, & Morey, 1992). Assigning ison that provides new evidence to distinguish between perceptually and conceptually accessible referents to these accounts.