Skip to main content Accessibility help

The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation



This study examined adult English native speakers' processing of sentences in which pronominal case marking conflicts with word order. Previous research has shown that English speakers rely heavily on word order for assigning case roles during sentence interpretation. However, in terms of cue reliability measures, we should expect English pronominal case to be nearly as strong a cue as word order. The current study examined this issue by asking subjects to interpret grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in which case competes with word order. The results indicated that word order remains the strongest cue in English, even when the case-marking cue is available. However, for noncanonical word orders, the case-marking cue had a strong effect on sentence interpretation.


Corresponding author

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yuki Yoshimura, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 161 Presidents Drive, Amherst, MA 01003. E-mail:


Hide All
Bates, E., McDonald, J. L., MacWhinney, B. M., & Appelbaum, M. (1991). A maximum likelihood procedure for the analysis of group and individual data in aphasia research. Brain and Language, 40, 231265.
Childers, J. B., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children's acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology, 37, 739748.
Devescovi, A., D'Amico, S., Smith, S., Mimica, I., & Bates, E. (1998). The development of sentence comprehension in Italian and Serbo–Croatian: Local versus distributed cues. In Hillert, D. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 31. Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 345377). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Evans, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1999). Sentence processing strategies in children with expressive and expressive-receptive specific language impairments. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 34, 117134.
Gibson, E. (1992). On the adequacy of the competition model. Language, 68, 812830.
Gordon, P., Grosz, B., & Gilliom, L. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311317.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaan, E. (2001). Effects of NP type on the resolution of word-order ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 529547.
Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In Kuczaj, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics (pp. 73136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). Extending the competition model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 6984.
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (Eds.). (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127150.
MacWhinney, B., St.James, J. D., Schunn, C., Li, P., & Schneider, W. (2001). STEP—A System for Teaching Experimental Psychology using E-Prime. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 33, 287296.
Massaro, D. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McDonald, J. L. (1986). The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 317335.
McDonald, J. L. (1987). Assigning linguistic roles: The influence of conflicting cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 100117.
McDonald, J. L., & Heilenman, K. (1991). Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 313348.
McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Maximum likelihood models for sentence processing research. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 397421). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407430.
Pléh, C. (1989). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 158184). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, E. (1998). On the limits of syntax, with reference to topicalization and left-dislocation. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. The limits of syntax (Vol. 29, pp. 281302). New York: Academic Press.
Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 4773.
Sasaki, Y. (1994). Paths of processing strategy transfers in learning Japanese and English as foreign languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 4372.
Sasaki, Y. (1997). Individual variation in a Japanese sentence comprehension task: Form, functions, and strategies. Applied Linguistics, 18, 508537.
Sasaki, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Language acquisition research based on the competition model. In Shirai, Y. (Ed.), Handbook of Japanese psycholinguistics (pp. 318328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 156163.
van Kemenade, A. (1987). Syntactic and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Applied Psycholinguistics
  • ISSN: 0142-7164
  • EISSN: 1469-1817
  • URL: /core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed