Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:09:17.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prominence of gender cues in the assignment of thematic roles in German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2017

YULIA ESAULOVA ,
CHIARA REALI  and
LISA VON STOCKHAUSEN
YULIA ESAULOVA*
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam
CHIARA REALI
Affiliation:
University of Duisburg–Essen
LISA VON STOCKHAUSEN
Affiliation:
University of Duisburg–Essen
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yulia Esaulova, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24–25, Potsdam 14476, Germany. E-mail: esaulova@uni-potsdam.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two eye-tracking experiments examined influences of grammatical and stereotypical gender cues on the assignment of thematic roles in German. Participants (N1 = 32, N2 = 40) read sentences with subject- and object-extracted relative clauses, where thematic agents and patients remained ambiguous until the end of the relative clause. The results reveal a linguistic gender bias: agent roles are assigned more easily to grammatically masculine than feminine role nouns and stereotypically neutral than female ones. The opposite pattern is observed in the assignment of patient roles for stereotypical but not grammatical gender. The findings are discussed within the framework of situation model theories as well as in constraint-based and similarity-based interference accounts, while gender is viewed as a dimension of prominence.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 5 , September 2017 , pp. 1133 - 1172
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.Google Scholar
Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136–141. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.1996.tb00346.x Google Scholar
Becker, T. (1994). Die Erklärung von Sprachwandel durch Sprachverwendung am Beispiel der deutschen Substantivflexion. In Köpcke, K.-M. (Ed.), Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie (pp. 45–64). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Beukeboom, C. J., Finkenauer, C., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). The negation bias: When negations signal stereotypic expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 978–992. doi:10.1037/a0020861 Google Scholar
Bittner, D. (2003). Semantisches in der pronominalen Flexion des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 21, 196–233.Google Scholar
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774–806. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1034 Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Friederici, A. D., Von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. NeuroImage, 26, 221–233.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P 600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55–73. doi:10.1016/j. brainresrev.2008.05.003 Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistic Compass, 3, 19–58. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x Google Scholar
Breen, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2011). Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 153–170. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.001 Google Scholar
Bußmann, H., & Hellinger, M. (2003). German: Engendering female visibility in German. In Hellinger, M. & Bußmann, H. (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 3, pp. 141–174). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., Corradini, P., Padovani, R., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Pronoun resolution in Italian: The role of grammatical gender and context. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 416–434. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.526599 Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Padovani, R. (2007). Further evidence on gender stereotype priming in language: Semantic facilitation and inhibition on Italian role nouns. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 277–293. doi:10.1017/S0142716407070142 Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 639–663. doi:10.1080/027249896392531 Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317–334. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00070-6 Google Scholar
Cohn, N., & Paczynski, M. (2013). Prediction, events, and the advantage of agents: The processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cognitive Psychology, 67, 73–97.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5 Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1971). Agency. In Binkley, R., Bronaugh, R., & Marras, A. (Eds.), Agent, action, and reason (pp. 3–15). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., & Flusberg, H. B. (1975). Some facts one simply cannot deny. Journal of Child Language, 2, 279–286. doi:10.1017/S0305000900001100 Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar: Part I. The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Esaulova, Y., Reali, C., & von Stockhausen, L. (2014). Influences of grammatical and stereotypical gender during reading: Eye movements in pronominal and noun phrase anaphor resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 781–803. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.794295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., & Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology, 47, 193–221. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(97)00033-1 Google Scholar
Gabriel, U., Gygax, P., Sarrasin, O., Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (2008). Au-pairs are rarely male: Role names’ gender stereotype information across three languages. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 206–212.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. C., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526–544.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161–187. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.004 Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1411–1423. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411 Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haupt, F. S. (2008). MPI series in human cognitive and brain sciences: Vol. 104. The component map- ping problem: An investigation of grammatical function reanalysis in different experimental contexts using event-related potentials. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences.Google Scholar
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.412 Google Scholar
Howell, D. C. (1998). Statistical methods in human sciences. New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Irmen, L. (2007). What's in a (role) name? Formal and conceptual aspects of comprehending personal nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 431–456. doi:10.1007/s10936-007-9053-z Google Scholar
Irmen, L., Holt, D. V., & Weisbrod, M. (2010). Effects of role typicality on processing person information in German: Evidence from an ERP study. Brain Research, 1353, 133–144. doi:10.1016/j. brainres.2010.07.018 Google Scholar
Irmen, L., & Schumann, E. (2011). Processing grammatical gender of role nouns: Further evidence from eye movements. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 998–1014. doi:10.1080/20445911. 2011.596824 Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122 Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.Google Scholar
Klein, U., Guntsetseg, D., & von Heusinger, K. (2012). Case in conflict: Embedded subjects in Mongolian. In Lamers, M. J. A. & Swart, P. de (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (pp. 43–64). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Koenig, A. M., Mitchell, A. A., Eagly, A. H., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642. doi:10.1037/a0023557 Google Scholar
Kreiner, H., Sturt, P., & Garrod, G. (2008). Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 239–261. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.003 Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, F., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Staub, A., Roehm, D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2012). Prominence facilitates ambiguity resolution: On the interaction between referentiality, thematic roles and word order in syntactic reanalysis. In Lamers, M. J. A. & de Swart, P. (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (pp. 239–271). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2009). Case syncretism in German feminines: Typological, functional and structural aspects. In Steinkrüger, P. & Krifka, M. (Eds.), On inflection (pp. 141–172). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S., & Nübling, D. (2011). The interaction of gender and declension in Germanic languages. Folia Linguistica, 45, 355–388.Google Scholar
Lamers, M. J. A. (2012). Argument linearization in Dutch: A multi-factorial approach. In Lamers, M. J. A. & de Swart, P. (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (pp. 121–144). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lamers, M. J. A., & de Swart, P. (2012). The interaction of case, word order and prominence: Language production and comprehension in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Lamers, M. J. A. & de Swart, P. (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the mean. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 764–766.Google Scholar
Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981–993. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981 Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157–201. doi:10.1080/01690969408402115 Google Scholar
MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676 Google Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50–68. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2837 Google Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466–490. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001 Google Scholar
McClelland, G. H. (2000). Nasty data: Unruly, ill-mannered observations can ruin your analysis. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 393–411). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L., Bock, J. K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and word order: Semantic, phonological and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188– 230.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Ferretti, T. (2005). A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1174–1184.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, M. (2002). Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft (8th ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1991). Reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: Bias varies with sample size. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 907–912.Google Scholar
Müsseler, J., Hielscher, M., & Rickheit, G. (1995). Focussing in spatial models. In Rickheit, G. & Habel, C. (Eds.), Focus and coherence in discourse processing (pp. 35–53). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 101, 608–631. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.940 Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2708 Google Scholar
Prat-Sala, M. (1997). The production of different word orders: A psycholinguistic and developmental approach (PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh).Google Scholar
Primus, B. (2006). Hierarchy mismatches and the dimensions of role semantics. In Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsk, M., & Comrie, B. (Eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 53–88). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Primus, B. (2011). Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives. Lingua, 121, 80–99.Google Scholar
Primus, B. (2012). Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking. In Lamers, M. J. A. & de Swart, P. (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (pp. 65–90). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 21–49. doi:10.1080/01690968908406362 Google Scholar
Reali, C., Esaulova, Y., & von Stockhausen, L. (in press). Isolating stereotypical gender in a grammatical gender language: Evidence from eye movements. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 977–1006. doi:10.1017/S0142716414000010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014 Google Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 637–655.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (2001). A corpus-based view of gender in British and American English. In Hellinger, M. & Bussmann, H. (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (pp. 153–175). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190. doi:10.1080/01638539809545043 Google Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558 Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x Google Scholar
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In Fiedler, K. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 71–86. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.002 Google Scholar
Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In Gaskell, G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. (2000). Linker inventories, linking splits and lexical economy. In Stiebels, B. & Wunderlich, D. (Eds.), Lexicon in focus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2836 Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204–224. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010 Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives in sentence processing (pp. 155–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1014 Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528–553. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.528 Google Scholar
Van Nice, K.Y., & Dietrich, R. (2003). Task sensitivity of animacy effects: Evidence from German picture descriptions. Linguistics, 41, 825–849.Google Scholar
Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Philipp, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2012). The role of animacy in online argument interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. In Lamers, M. J. A. & de Swart, P. (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (pp. 91–119). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wigboldus, D. H. J., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 5–18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.5 Google Scholar
Yager, L., Hellmold, N., Joo, H.-A., Putnam, M. T., Rossi, E., Stafford, C., & Salmons, J. (2015). New structural patterns in moribund grammar: Case marking in Heritage German. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1716. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716 Google Scholar
Yamamoto, M. (1991). Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.1 Google Scholar