Reaching Up and Reaching Out: Preposition Processing Hollis Thomann, Linguistics, College of Science, Advisor: Dr. Heather Littlefield

Transcription

1 Reaching Up and Reaching Out: Preposition Processing Hollis Thomann, Linguistics, College of Science, Advisor: Dr. Heather Littlefield Abstract Littlefield (2009) posited four categories within the prepositional domain: adverbial prepositions [+Lexical, -Functional], semi-lexical prepositions [+Lexical, +Functional], particles [-Lexical, - Functional], and functional prepositions [-Lexical, +Functional]. She found evidence for these fine-grained categories by looking at how different categories act syntactically and semantically. Littlefield also found evidence for the existence of these categories through first language acquisition, children acquire the prepositions in a particular order: adverbial, particle, semilexical, and finally functional. The current study investigates whether adults process these finegrained categories of prepositions differently. The results indicate that adults do process these categories of prepositions differently, supporting the existence of these categories. Establishing these fine-grained categories of prepositions will be useful for understanding categories of other classes of words and how they differ syntactically. These categories will be especially useful for second-language acquisition. Students who are learning English as a foreign language can learn the four different categories and understand how the categories act differently syntactically, thus enabling them to be more fluent speakers. Tags: prepositions, fine-grained categories, language processing, functional, lexical 1 Introduction 1 Littlefield (2009) posited four categories within the prepositional domain: adverbial prepositions [+Lexical, -Functional], semi-lexical prepositions [+Lexical, +Functional], particles [-Lexical, - Functional], and functional prepositions [-Lexical, +Functional]. She used a fine-grained approach in which the features lexical and functional were not held in binary opposition of one another, as they had been in previous work (Grimshaw 1991 and van Riemsdijk 1990, 1998) which is discussed further in section (2). These categories differ in how they act syntactically and semantically, most strikingly some categories allow types of movement that others do not allow. By understanding these fine-grained categories, we might better understand movement in syntax. In addition to finding syntactic and semantic evidence for these categories, Littlefield (2009) found that children acquire these categories in a particular order: adverbial, particle, semi-lexical, and finally functional, with the [-Functional] items being acquired first and the [-Functional] items acquired last and [+Lexical] items being acquired earlier than their [-Lexical] counterparts. The current study aims to help validate or disprove that this type of fine-grained approach to categories is accurate by looking at the processing of these different types of prepositions. If adults process the different categories differently, then the current study will help to validate this approach. If adults process the categories the same, then the study will suggest that this approach is incorrect. If the fine-grained approach is shown to be effective with prepositions, the approach can be extended to other domains, such as the verbal domain, and could be useful for better understanding syntactic relationship, aiding the teaching of prepositions to second language learners, and aid in the understanding of a wide range of other domains, like patterns of preposition use and misuse by aphasic patients. 1 This research would not have been possible without funding from the Northeastern University Honors Program, Lucas Schoeppner s drawings, and Xu Zhao s help with the statistical analysis. This research was approved by the Northeastern University IRB board, IRB #:

2 2 The Fine-grained Categories of Prepositions The debate on how to categorize linguistic items in terms of their features has mostly focused on whether items are lexical or functional. That is, the debate has mostly concerned the features of lexical and functional as binary opposites, if an item is [+Lexical], then it must be [-Functional] as well and visa-versa. Grimshaw (1991) and van Reimsdijk (1990, 1998) propose the feature [± F], or [±Functional], which divides the major lexical categories into functional [+F] and lexical [-F] elements. Littlefield (2009) parses out the functional features from the lexical features, suggesting that these features are not in binary opposition. Therefore, if an item is [+Lexical] it can be either [-Functional] or [+Functional], and the same for [-Lexical] items. The current study follows Littlefield (2009) s example and looks at prepositions categorized by the two distinct features, [± Lexical] and [± Functional], in other words, the fine-grained categories of prepositions. The prepositional domain, described by these fine-grained categories, is shown in Table (1). Table (1): The Prepositional Domain +Functional +Case assignment (IP) Specific complement type Functional Case assignment No specific complement type +Lexical +Semantic content +Theta-role assignment (morphophonetically heavy) Open class category Semi-lexical Preposition (in, on, under, with) Adverbial Preposition (throw up the ball) Lexical Semantic content Theta-role assignment (morphophonetically light) Closed class category Functional Preposition (of) Particle (throw up vomit ) 2.1 Lexical and Functional Features A linguistic item is [+Functional] if it provides connectivity between items in a phrase or a sentence. For example, the role of inflection (INFL) in a sentence is to link the subject and the predicate together. Without this [+Functional] item, a sentence like, *the boy run everyday, is difficult to interpret as the lack of the [+Functional] item makes it ungrammatical. We consider a linguistic item to be [+Lexical] if it contributes descriptive, or notional content. Essentially, the Functional feature concerns the syntactic contribution and the Lexical feature concerns the semantic contribution. Crucially for this study, we can determine whether a preposition is [± Lexical] and [± Functional]. A preposition is determined to be functional if the preposition links elements in a phrase together. Those elements that can assign Case or Agreement are designated [+Functional], those that cannot are designated [-Functional]. Prepositions are determined to be [+Lexical] if they contribute a descriptive, substantive meaning and can act as arguments or adjuncts. Prepositions are [-Lexical] if they don t contribute substantive meaning and cannot act as arguments or adjuncts.

3 2.1.1 [± Functional] As mentioned above, a preposition is [+Functional] if it is able to link elements in a phrase together, usually through Case assignment and a [-Functional] item cannot link elements together. Interestingly, [+Functional] items also pattern differently than [-Functional] items in terms of what types of movement are allowed. Littlefield (2009) provides examples of how [+Functional] items pattern differently than [-Functional] items, including what structures and movements are allowed for one type and not for the other. Table (1), from Littlefield (2009:69), shows these differences. For example, only [+Functional] items are allowed to engage in piedpiping (1a) and fronting (1b). (1) a [Up which slope] did they trudge? (semi-lexical) *[Out which dog] did they let? (adverb) b [Up the slope], they trudged. (semi-lexical) *[Out the beagle], they let. (adverb) However, [-Functional] items allow object shift (2a) while [+Functional] items do not allow object shift (2b). (2) a The looked (up) the number (up). (particle) b Mary is proud (of) her son (*of). (functional) [-Functional] prepositional items follow the pronominal object (3a) whereas [+Functional] prepositional items must precede their pronominal objects (3b). (3) a He looked (*up) it (up). (particle) b Mary is proud (of) him (*of). (functional) Table (2), excerpted from Littlefield (2009:69), summarizes the differing patterns of [+Functional] and [-Functional] elements. Table (2): Patterns for Functional Items [-Functional] Adverbs, Particles [+Functional] Semi-lexical Preps, Functional Preps Pied-piping * Fronting * Object Shift * Pronominal object precedes Prep Element * True adverb between verb and Prep element * Gapping (DP follows P) * Littlefield (2009:69)

4 2.1.2 [± Lexical] As described in section 2.1, a preposition is [+Lexical] if it contributes a descriptive content and a [-Lexical] item cannot. As with [± Functional] items, [+Lexical] items pattern differently than [-Lexical] items in terms of what types of movement are allowed. For example, [+Lexical] items allow for easy substitution of elements (4a) and [-Lexical] items do not (4b). Note: the particle in (4b) is marked as ungrammatical because there is no shared element that contributes a consistent meaning as with the adverb which has the shared spatial meaning of up. (4) a The girls will sit/stand/drive/jump up. (adverb) b *The girls will crack/throw/blow up. (particle) Additionally, [+Lexical] items allow for imperative structure (5a, 5b) and [-Lexical] items do not (5c, 5d). (5) a Out! (adverb) b To the park! (semi-lexical) c *Up! (meaning: Throw up!) (particle) d *Of Daisy! (meaning: Be proud of Daisy!) (functional) Table (3) below, excepted from Littlefield (2009:69), outlines the different patterns that are allowed for [+Lexical] versus [-Lexical] items. Table (3): Patterns for Lexical Items [-Lexical] Particles, Functional Preps [+Lexical] Adverbs, Semi-lexical Preps Prep element occurs with unique, unpredictable head * Easy substitution * Imperative stress * Contrastive stress * Gapping (DP precedes P) * May be an argument * May be an adjunct * Modified by degree adverbs * Modified by straight * Littlefield (2009:69) 2.2 The Fine-Grained Categories The four categories of prepositions are different from each other in that they act differently syntactically as seen above, but their semantic and phonological overlap indicate that they nevertheless belong to the same domain. Adverbial prepositions can convey descriptive content but cannot link elements through Case assignment, and are thus [+Lexical, -Functional], like put on the coat. Functional prepositions are on the other end of the spectrum, they don t contribute descriptive content but can link elements through Case assignment, like box of chocolates. Semilexical prepositions convey descriptive content and can link elements through Case assignment,

5 like walk along the river. Particles are the idiosyncratic category, they don t convey descriptive content and cannot link elements through Case assignment, like crack up ( meaning laugh ) Adverbial [+Lexical, -Functional] Adverbial prepositions, like put on the coat, help convey descriptive content. The on contributes the directional information of where the coat is being put and can be contrasted with the down in put down the coat. Because adverbial prepositions contribute descriptive content they are designated [+Lexical]. Adverbial prepositions cannot assign Case so they are also designated [- Functional] Semi-Lexical [+Lexical, +Functional] Semi-Lexical prepositions, like walk along the river, also convey descriptive content, and are thus [+Lexical]. Along signifies the Path theta-role that it assigns. The descriptive content that they convey is exemplified by the variety of theta-roles that they can assign, as demonstrated in Table (4). Semi-Lexical prepositions can also link elements in a phrase through Case assignment. Because semi-lexical prepositions link elements through Case assignment, they require an internal complement. Table (4): Theta-roles Assigned by Semi-lexical Prepositions Theta-role Example Locative Goal Source Path Recipient Benefactive Instrument Agent The book is on the table. We flew to Chicago. We flew from Boston. He walked along the river. I gave the book to him. I bought it for him. She cut the paper with scissors. You were bitten by the dog Particle [-Lexical, -Functional] Particles, like, crack up (meaning laugh ), don t convey descriptive content in and of themselves. That is, no interpretation of the word up is contributed to the meaning of crack up and thus particles are designated [-Lexical]. Particles also cannot link elements through Case assignment and are designated [-Functional]. Because particles are both [-Lexical] and [- Functional] they constitute the idiosyncratic category of prepositions. Particles have a very close relationship with the verb they follow. For example, with the verb-particle crack up (meaning laugh ), you can not take the meaning of crack and add it to the meaning of up in any way that represents the meaning of crack up. Because of this phenomenon, the verb-particle combination might in fact be represented as one lexical item.

6 2.2.6 Functional [-Lexical, +Functional] Functional prepositions don t contribute significant semantic content and can assign Case and are thus the purely functional category. The destruction of the city and Sarah is proud of her son are both examples of the Functional preposition of, the most common Functional preposition. Both examples would be ungrammatical if of was omitted because the preposition is required to assign Case to the following noun phrase. Additionally, neither contribute to the meaning of the phrase. By altering the word order to the city s destruction, we can see that of is not required to retrieve the meaning of the phrase. 3 Evidence for the Categories 3.1 Evidence from Acquisition: Littlefield (2009) Littlefield (2009) not only established that these fine-grained categories pattern differently using syntactic and semantic evidence, but expanded her research to find evidence for the categories in longitudinal language acquisition data. Using the CHILDES database, she found that children learn the fine-grained categories in a particular order. The initial analysis contained data from five children: Adam (Brown 1973), Naomi (Sachs 1983, MacWhinney and Snow 1985), Nina (Suppes 1974), Sarah (Brown 1973), and Eve (Brown 1973). Their data show that adverbial prepositions and particles are acquired early on (for all children with Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) at or respectively), followed by semi-lexical prepositions (for most children with MLU of ), with functional prepositions being the last to be acquired (for most children with MLU of ). The probability that all five children would follow this same pattern of acquisition of adverbs/particles, then semi-lexical prepositions, and finally functional prepositions is p= However, because children seem to acquire adverbial prepositions and particles very early on, for most children in their first recorded stage, it was necessary to incorporate data from children with data at an earlier stage. Two additional children with data starting while they were in the first MLU group (MLU ) were added in order to shed light on the order of acquisition between adverbial prepositions and particles. These two added children were Geraldine (the Haas files, Hayes 1988) and Melissa (Demetras, Post and Snow 1986, Post 1992, 1994), who were added to Naomi's data as hers also began in the first MLU group. Taking a closer look at the children's specific use of adverbial prepositions and particles distributed within the first MLU group, it seems that all three children show a delay in the production of particles. Adverbs are produced earlier with a higher frequency and then particles begin to be produced. Thus, the pattern of acquisition shows that the four categories are indeed important for acquisition: functionality is of utmost importance as [-Functional] items are acquired first (adverbs and particles) and then [+Functional] items are acquired, and lexicality is of secondary importance with adverbial prepositions acquired before particles and semi-lexical prepositions acquired before functional prepositions. These findings, showing that children acquire these different categories of prepositions at different stages, suggest that there are differences among the categories that might extend to different processing of these categories, which will be investigated in the current study.

7 3.2 Suggestions from Processing: Friederici (1983) Friederici (1983) investigated the development of lexical and structural information processing in German children ages 5-11, specifically looking at how the children processed prepositions. In this study, Friederici listed three different types of prepositions: lexical, syntactic prepositions, and verb particles, the equivalents to Littlefield are outlined in Table (5). The lexical prepositions are those that would be designated [+Lexical] and the syntactic prepositions would be those designated [+Functional]. Those prepositions that Friederici designated verb particles correspond to the particles discussed in Littlefield (2009) and the current study. Table (5): Comparison of the Prepositional Categories Used by Freiderici and Littlefield Friederici (1983) s Features Littlefield (2009) s features Lexical prepositions Semi-Lexical prepositions [+Lexical, +Functional] Adverbial prepositions [+Lexical, -Functional] Syntactic prepositions Functional prepositions [-Lexical, +Functional] Verb particles Particles [-Lexical, -Functional] Children were presented a target word and then a sentence, in which they were instructed to press a response key as soon as they heard the target word. In experiment 1, the data from children age 8-9 suggest that children had more difficulties in processing syntactic/obligatory prepositions than the others and that verb particles were processed the fastest. In experiment 2, the data from children age 5-8 again show the same pattern with slightly stronger results: syntactic/obligatory prepositions result in the highest percentages of non-responses and verb particles were processed the fastest. Crucially, this study provides the first suggestion that these fine-grained categories of prepositions are processed differently. 3.3 Rationale for the Present Study Littlefield (2009) presents the fine-grained categories of prepositions and provides evidence for these categories using research from first-language acquisition and differing patterns among categories in the semantic and syntactic domains but does not address whether these categories make a difference in on-line processing. Friederici (1983) provides data that suggests a difference in processing but is limited to showing only that one category leads to more non-responses and another is processed more quickly than the others, without clear differences in processing between the fine-grained categories. Freiderici (1983) is also limited in answering this question because the study was conducted with children, in German (a language that might have subtle differences in the categories of prepositions), and using only three categories of prepositions which limits the possible parallels to the findings in Littlefield (2009). The current study aims to address whether adults process these fine-grained categories differently, which would validate or disprove the fine-grained view of categories. If adults don t process these four categories differently, then perhaps the binary view of lexical and functional features is a more accurate representation. However, if there is a difference between all four categories then this study would support the fine-grained approach to categorization and syntax.

8 4 Method The present study was designed to test whether adults process the fine-grained categories of prepositions differently. Participants were first presented with a picture intended to trigger the meaning of a preposition, then they were presented with the preposition itself and were asked to answer whether the word was related to the picture before or not related. The reaction times and responses were analyzed for patterns between the fine-grained categories. 4.1 Participants The participants were 35 Northeastern undergraduate students who were all native speakers of English. Twenty-one of the subjects were females and 14 were males. Subjects ages ranged from 19 to 23 years old. 4.2 Stimuli In order to ensure that the pictures adequately invoked the meaning of the prepositional element as intended, a preliminary study was conducted. All of the pictures for each of the four categories were presented to subjects in an online survey. Volunteer subjects were asked to simply describe what they saw in the picture. There were two different versions of the study, one in which a word was displayed below the picture to push the interpretation of the picture to match the meaning of the preposition, and another in which there was no word displayed below the picture. Each picture was then rated on the proportion of subjects that used the intended preposition in their description of the picture. Unsurprisingly, subjects did better, used the intended prepositions more often, when an interpretation-pushing word was placed below the picture. Any picture that had less than a 25% accuracy rate were excluded from the current study. The lengths of the prepositional items were also controlled. As length of words can have a significant effect on reaction times, controlling for length between experimental items was important. The average length of the prepositions were 2.5 letters, with the average for adverbial prepositions being 2.64 letters, the average for semi-lexical prepositions 3 letters, the average for functional items 2.07 letters, and the average length for particles 2.29 letters. The experimental stimuli for the current experiment were pictures representing the four different categories of prepositions with a word written below to push the interpretation of the picture, as displayed in Figure (1). Fourteen trials of each preposition were displayed in a random order with at least one filler trial between each experimental trial. Filler trials consisted of either adjective-noun combinations, like tall man, or compound nouns, like doorbell. Filler items were also matched in length to the experimental items to minimize differences between experimental and filler items. The rationale for the use of these types of fillers is discussed further in section 4.3.

9 Figure (1): The Experimental Items by Prepositional Category Adverbial [+Lexical, -Functional] Semi-lexical [+Lexical, +Functional] the word on is displayed after Particle [-Lexical, -Functional] the word along is displayed after Functional [-Lexical, +Functional] the word up is displayed after the word of is displayed after Figure (2): Sample Experimental Trial View: Answer: Is this word related to the picture? Y/N of 4.3 Procedure All participants were tested in a quiet room on a computer using the DMDX software (Forster and Forster 2003). They were instructed on the procedure and then participated in a practice session before beginning the trials. In the experimental trials they were presented with a picture to trigger the meaning of a preposition, like those shown in Figure (1) and Figure (2), with a word presented below to push the interpretation of the picture. This was important because when viewing the picture for box of chocolates, participants could think of various other related words and phrases like Valentine s day or love so the work box was placed below the picture to push the interpretation of the picture. Participants were instructed that the words below the pictures were there to push their interpretation of the picture. After looking at the picture, participants would then press a button and be presented with the prepositional word related to the picture they just saw. For example after seeing the picture representing a box of chocolates with the word box underneath it, they would then be presented with the corresponding preposition, of. Participants were instructed to make the decision whether the word was related (by pressing a button labeled Y on the computer) or not related to

10 the picture (button labeled N). Participants were instructed to make their decisions as quickly as possible and not to debate if the word was related to the picture for too long. In the filler trials, participants were shown picture and word combinations that were unrelated 75% of the time. Examples of the filler trials are shown in Figure (3). For example, participants would see a picture of a broken pencil with the word broken underneath and then be presented with the word dog. The majority of the filler pictures were followed by unrelated words so that participants would not develop a strategy of selecting related (Y) for every trial. The other 25% of the fillers were comprised of words that were related to the picture before it. This is so that participants wouldn t develop a strategy of only selecting related (Y) for prepositions. For the other 25% of the fillers, the word displayed after the filler picture was related to the picture. The adjective-noun combination was used so that not all related trials were presented in such a way that the word following the picture, for example hot, could directly follow the word displayed below the picture, in this example warm under the picture for warm pie. The compound noun filler combinations were chosen so that not all the related trials in which the word presented after the picture, for example ball, that could directly follow the word displayed below the picture, in this example snow under the picture for snowball. Figure (3): Filler Types Type of Filler Picture Word for related or not related? Unrelated dog Adjective-Noun hot Compound Noun ball

11 5 Hypotheses If adults don t process these fine-grained categories of prepositions differently, then they will not show any differences between categories in either reaction times or responses. If adults do process these fine-grained categories differently, then there are certain predictions we can make about how their reaction time and response data might pattern. 5.1 Reaction Times The results for reaction times could be the same as those that Littlefield (2009) found in child language acquisition: adverbial, particle, semi-lexical, and then functional. Although that pattern was found in acquisition and the current study studies processing, the two could converge. The pattern in acquisition might be due to an ease in processing, perhaps [-Functional] items are easier to process and thus are acquired first. However, the results could be more similar to the results found in Friederici (1983) which looked specifically at processing and found that particles were processed significantly faster than other categories. 5.2 Responses Because [+Lexical] items contribute descriptive content, they are expected to be selected as related to the picture the more often than [-Lexical] items. Therefore, adverbial [+Lexical, - Functional] and semi-lexical prepositions [+Lexical, +Functional] are expected to be selected as more related than the particles [-Lexical, -Functional] and functional prepositions [-Lexical, +Functional]. This would make sense because as [+Lexical] prepositions contribute descriptive content, and are therefore more pictorially represented than the [-Lexical] items. 6 Results The results indicate that adults process fine-grained prepositional categories differently. The categories that are [-Functional] are processed more quickly than the [+Functional] categories, as can be seen in Figure (4). Additionally, the categories that are [+Lexical] are rated as more related to the picture than [-Lexical] categories, as can be seen in Figure (5). The results for both reaction times and responses will be discussed further in sections 6.1 and Reaction Times Both of the [-Functional] items, adverbial prepositions and particles, were processed more quickly than the [+Functional] items, semi-lexical and functional prepositions. There was no significant difference between categories based on lexical features of the items, that is those categories that were matched in their functional features (adverbial prepositions and particles, semi-lexical and functional prepositions) were not found to be significantly different from each other. However, there was a non-significant trend for the [+ Lexical] items to be processed more slowly than their [-Lexical] counterparts. Both the main effect and several of the planned comparisons were found to be statistically significant. One-way Anova showed a main effect of prepositional category (p< 0.008). Planned comparisons showed specific differences between categories with [-Functional] categories processed more quickly than [+Functional] categories. Adverbial prepositions (M = , SE = 70.67) were processed more quickly than semi-lexical prepositions (M = ,

12 SE = 70.61), two-tailed P < Particles (M = , SE = 71.10) were processed more quickly than functional prepositions (M = , SE = 58.81), two-tailed P < Adverbial prepositions (M = , SE = 70.67) were processed more quickly than functional prepositions (M = , SE = 58.81), two-tailed P < Particles (M = , SE = 71.10) were processed more quickly than semi-lexical prepositions (M = , SE = 70.61), twotailed P < Figure (4) 6.2 Participant Responses The trend in the data showed that adverbial prepositions had the highest proportion of being selected related to the picture, followed by semi-lexical prepositions, and then particles, and finally functional prepositions had the lowest proportion of being selected related. The significant differences were found between those that contrasted in the lexical features: adverbial prepositions [+Lexical, -Functional] were found to be significantly different from particles [- Lexical, -Functional], semi-lexical prepositions [+Lexical, +Functional] were found to be significantly different from functional prepositions [-Lexical, +Functional]. There is not a significant difference found between those that contrast in their function features. However, it seems the functional feature is playing some role because the contrast in their lexical feature alone does not make for a significant difference between the semi-lexical prepositions and particles. The [-Functional] feature seems to be giving the particles a higher proportion of related which explains the trending, although not significant, difference between the particles and the functional and semi-lexical prepositions. This non-significant trend for [- Functional] prepositions to be rated higher for relatedness as compared to their matched preposition for lexical features can also be seen in the difference between adverbial prepositions and semi-lexical prepositions.

13 In terms of responses, the main effect was approaching significance and several of the planned comparisons were found to be statistically significant. One-way Anova test showed that the main effect of prepositional category was approaching significance (p = ). Planned comparisons showed specific differences between categories with [+Lexical] rated as more related than [-Lexical] categories. Semi-lexical prepositions (M =.9022, SE =.0332) were rated more related than functional prepositions (M =.8066, SE =.0543), one-tailed P < Adverbial prepositions (M =.9577, SE =.0162) were rated more related than particles (M =.8643, SE =.0461), one-tailed P < Adverbial prepositions (M =.9577, SE =.0162) were rated more related than functional prepositions (M =.80663, SE =.0543), one-tailed P < Figure (5) 7 Discussion 7.1 Interpretation of Results The results indicate that adults process fine-grained categories of prepositions differently. The reaction time data show that [-Functional] categories are processed more quickly than [+Functional] categories. The response data show that [+Lexical] items are considered more related to the overall meaning of the phrase that contains them than [-Lexical] items. There is also a non-significant trend for [-Functional] items to be considered more related than [+Functional] items. 7.2 Reaction Times The pattern of reaction time results found in this study did not exactly follow the expectations stemming from Littlefield (2009) or Friederici (1983). The reaction time results showed that [- Functional] items were processed more quickly than the [+Functional] items. The acquisition results from Littlefield (2009) did show that [-Functional] items were acquired before [+Functional] items which is consistent with the current results, which might suggest that [- Functional] items are easier to process and therefore acquired earlier. However, the Littlefield (2009) data also showed that, when matched for function features, [+Lexical] items are acquired before the [-Lexical] items, which is a pattern not replicated in the reaction time data. Perhaps [+Lexical] items are acquired before their [-Lexical] counterparts for a different reason than processing. Children might acquire [+Lexical] items, when matched for functionality, earlier because they are more salient as they contribute descriptive content. Such an explanation would

14 explain why the exact pattern from Littlefield (2009) was not replicated here. Friederici (1983) did find that particles were processed the most quickly but did not find that adverbial prepositions, which would be considered lexical prepositions in her study, were processed the most quickly as well. Why is it that [+Functional] items take longer to process than the [-Functional] prepositions? There might be a time-consuming process to connect the preposition to the item to which it assigns Case. This might be further complicated by the fact that the item the preposition is assigning Case to is no longer on the screen and must be recalled from the picture previously displayed. 7.3 Responses The response results found in this study were expected. When answering the question, Is this word related to the picture? it is expected that participants would take into account if the word added any significant semantic meaning to the phrase, that is if the word belongs to a [+Lexical] category. The results from the present study indicate that participants are considering whether the item is [+Lexical] into account when deciding how related a preposition is to the preceding picture. There is also a non-significant trend for the [-Functional] items to be rated more related than their matched [+Functional] item, which can be viewed in Figure (4). Adverbial prepositions [+L, -F] are (non-significantly) rated as more related than semi-lexical prepositions [+L, +F] and particles [-L, -F] are (non-significantly) rated as more related than functional prepositions [-L, +F]. This trend could be explained in a few different ways. This trend could be a result of some kind of interaction between reaction times and responses, a speed accuracy trade-off, in which the [+Functional] items take longer to process and participants therefore have more time to question the relatability of the word to the picture and chose them to be less related. The other explanation for this trend specifically addresses the difference between particles and functional prepositions. There is an especially close relationship between the verb and the particle. Verb particle pairings, for example crack up, may very well constitute their own individual lexical entry apart from the individual lexical entries of their components, like crack and up. (Bolinger, 1974) This close relationship might lead participants to believe that up is more integral to the meaning of the picture for crack up than of is for the meaning of box of chocolates even though both items are [-Lexical]. However, this second explanation does not explain why there is also this trend between adverbial and semi-lexical prepositions. 7.4 Possible Issues The current study used pictures to represent the prepositions rather than incorporating the prepositions into sentence processing. This limits the ability to call the reaction times onlineprocessing because there can be no comparison of items at the moment that the preposition occurred. This was necessary because controlling for similarities between sentence structure and lexical items for sentences in each category proved to be too difficult. The current study bypasses that issue by presenting a picture representing a phrase that contains the preposition. Some might also take issue with the fact that all of the experimental items were related contexts. This could have been an issue if participants developed the strategy of selecting yes every time they saw a preposition, but based on the response data, their responses were more nuanced.

15 8 Suggestions for Future Research 8.1 Implications for Other Linguistic Items (verbs, etc.) By establishing these four fine-grained categories of prepositions with evidence in first-language acquisition and processing in adults, we could extend this practice to other domains to better understand how different categories act syntactically, how they are acquired, and how they are processed. 8.2 Implications for Second Language Acquisition This processing study lends support for the existence of these fine-grained categories. Because there is so much support for these categories, we might be able to use them to help first and second language acquisition. One can imagine that a student learning English as a foreign language would find these categories useful. Instead of having to learn what is and isn t allowed for every single preposition, syntactically and semantically, which would get quite difficult based on the amount of phonological overlap, students can learn the fine-grained categories and the patterns that go along with them. Students would find information about allowed movements and modification, such as what is displayed in Tables (1) and (2), invaluable in their quest to gain fluency. 8.3 Cross-Linguistic Fine-Grained Adpositional Categories? The next step would be to look cross-culturally at fine-grained adpositional categories in other languages. It would be interesting to see if the types of movement that are allowed based on the categories in English are also found in other languages. Additionally, it would be interesting to look at second-language acquisition of these categories in English and in other languages. 9 Conclusion This research provides further evidence of the fine-grained categories of prepositions and is the first to show that adults process these categories differently. Finding evidence for these finegrained categories opens up the opportunity to find fine-grained categories in other domains, such as the verbal domain. Perhaps all [-Functional] items are easier and enable faster processing, it may be that [+Lexical] items are more strongly linked to the overall meaning of the phrase but that [-Functional] items also have a role in determining the link to meaning of the phrase. By categorizing other domains in language we might better understand how some items act differently syntactically and semantically, and thus have a better picture of how language is processed in the brain. 10 Bibliography Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, Friederici, A. D. (1983). Children's sensitivity to function words during sentence comprehension. Linguistics, 21(5), Grimshaw, J. (1991). Extended projection. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University. Littlefield, H. (2009). A fine-grained approach to lexical and functional syntactic categories: Evidence from English prepositions and their acquisitions. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

16 Riemsdijk, H. C. van (1990). Circumpositions. In H. Pinkster and I. Genee (eds), Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon Dik on his 50th birthday. Dordrecht: Foris, Riemsdijk, H. C. van (1998). Categorial feature magnetism: the endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2, Appendix 11.1 Experimental Items The following are the images and words used to invoke the meaning of the prepositions Adverbial Prepositions

17 Semi-lexical Prepositions Functional Prepositions

18 Particles