Cargando…

Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking

Speakers of a language sometimes use particular constructions which violate prescriptive grammar rules. Despite their prescriptive ungrammaticality, they can occur rather frequently. One such example is the comparative construction in Dutch and similarly in German, where the equative particle is use...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hubers, Ferdy, Redl, Theresa, de Vos, Hugo, Reinarz, Lukas, de Hoop, Helen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7034421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32116969
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00186
_version_ 1783499873331445760
author Hubers, Ferdy
Redl, Theresa
de Vos, Hugo
Reinarz, Lukas
de Hoop, Helen
author_facet Hubers, Ferdy
Redl, Theresa
de Vos, Hugo
Reinarz, Lukas
de Hoop, Helen
author_sort Hubers, Ferdy
collection PubMed
description Speakers of a language sometimes use particular constructions which violate prescriptive grammar rules. Despite their prescriptive ungrammaticality, they can occur rather frequently. One such example is the comparative construction in Dutch and similarly in German, where the equative particle is used in comparative constructions instead of the prescriptively correct comparative particle (Dutch beter als Jan and German besser wie Jan “lit. better as John”). In a series of three experiments using sentence-matching and eye-tracking methodology, we investigated whether this grammatical norm violation is processed as grammatical, as ungrammatical, or whether it falls in between these two. We hypothesized that the latter would be the case. We analyzed our data using linear mixed effects models in order to capture possible individual differences. The results of the sentence-matching experiments, which were conducted in both Dutch and German, showed that the grammatical norm violation patterns with ungrammatical sentences in both languages. Our hypothesis was therefore not borne out. However, using the more sensitive eye-tracking method on Dutch speakers only, we found that the ungrammatical alternative leads to higher reading times than the grammatical norm violation. We also found significant individual variation regarding this very effect. We furthermore replicated the processing difference between the grammatical norm violation and the prescriptively correct variant. In summary, we conclude that while the results of the more sensitive eye-tracking experiment suggest that the grammatical norm violation is not processed completely on a par with ungrammatical sentences, the results of all three experiments clearly show that the grammatical norm violation cannot be considered grammatical, either.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7034421
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70344212020-02-28 Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking Hubers, Ferdy Redl, Theresa de Vos, Hugo Reinarz, Lukas de Hoop, Helen Front Psychol Psychology Speakers of a language sometimes use particular constructions which violate prescriptive grammar rules. Despite their prescriptive ungrammaticality, they can occur rather frequently. One such example is the comparative construction in Dutch and similarly in German, where the equative particle is used in comparative constructions instead of the prescriptively correct comparative particle (Dutch beter als Jan and German besser wie Jan “lit. better as John”). In a series of three experiments using sentence-matching and eye-tracking methodology, we investigated whether this grammatical norm violation is processed as grammatical, as ungrammatical, or whether it falls in between these two. We hypothesized that the latter would be the case. We analyzed our data using linear mixed effects models in order to capture possible individual differences. The results of the sentence-matching experiments, which were conducted in both Dutch and German, showed that the grammatical norm violation patterns with ungrammatical sentences in both languages. Our hypothesis was therefore not borne out. However, using the more sensitive eye-tracking method on Dutch speakers only, we found that the ungrammatical alternative leads to higher reading times than the grammatical norm violation. We also found significant individual variation regarding this very effect. We furthermore replicated the processing difference between the grammatical norm violation and the prescriptively correct variant. In summary, we conclude that while the results of the more sensitive eye-tracking experiment suggest that the grammatical norm violation is not processed completely on a par with ungrammatical sentences, the results of all three experiments clearly show that the grammatical norm violation cannot be considered grammatical, either. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7034421/ /pubmed/32116969 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00186 Text en Copyright © 2020 Hubers, Redl, de Vos, Reinarz and de Hoop. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Hubers, Ferdy
Redl, Theresa
de Vos, Hugo
Reinarz, Lukas
de Hoop, Helen
Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking
title Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking
title_full Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking
title_fullStr Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking
title_full_unstemmed Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking
title_short Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking
title_sort processing prescriptively incorrect comparative particles: evidence from sentence-matching and eye-tracking
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7034421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32116969
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00186
work_keys_str_mv AT hubersferdy processingprescriptivelyincorrectcomparativeparticlesevidencefromsentencematchingandeyetracking
AT redltheresa processingprescriptivelyincorrectcomparativeparticlesevidencefromsentencematchingandeyetracking
AT devoshugo processingprescriptivelyincorrectcomparativeparticlesevidencefromsentencematchingandeyetracking
AT reinarzlukas processingprescriptivelyincorrectcomparativeparticlesevidencefromsentencematchingandeyetracking
AT dehoophelen processingprescriptivelyincorrectcomparativeparticlesevidencefromsentencematchingandeyetracking