Processing Gapped Verbs

J Psycholinguist Res (2013) 42:307–338DOI 10.1007/s10936-012-9220-8

Processing Gapped Verbs

Edith Kaan · Carlie Overfelt ·Do Tromp · Frank Wijnen

Published online: 27 April 2012© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract The time course was investigated of the processing of “missing” verbs in gappingconstructions, such as John ate the hamburger, and Bill __ the hotdog. Native speakers ofDutch silently read Dutch sentences with and without gapping while their EEG was recorded.A left anterior negativity (LAN) was found at the first possible position at which the gappedverb could be detected, at least, for in participants who performed poorly in an end-of-sen-tence acceptability judgment task. This suggests that some readers do not anticipate thegapped verb, but infer the gapped verb in a bottom-up fashion, resulting in a LAN. Second, aP600 effect was observed for gapping versus no-gapping conditions, the early part of whichwas unaffected by plausibility. This suggests that the semantic and syntactic integration ofa gapped verb is a relatively late process, and involves mechanisms similar to integrating awh-phrase object with its verb.

Keywords Gapping · Ellipsis · ERP · LAN · P600

Introduction

Ellipsis constructions are sentences in which some overt verbs and/or nouns are missing. Yet,these “missing” elements can be easily inferred from a preceding clause or wider context.An example of ellipses is verb gapping, as in Jack washed the pots and Jill __ the pans.Here, the verb is missing from the second clause, but readers interpret the second clause ashaving the same verb as the first (washed). Verb gapping and other ellipsis constructions are

E. Kaan (B) · C. OverfeltDepartment of Linguistics, University of Florida, Box 115454, Gainesville, FL 32611, USAe-mail: [email protected]

D. TrompWaisman Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

F. WijnenUtrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

123

308 J Psycholinguist Res (2013) 42:307–338

interesting from a psycholinguistic perspective. Investigating how humans process materialthat is not physically present in the spoken or written input may provide insight into whatkind of information (syntactic, lexical, prosodic…) is available and used when during sen-tence processing. Important questions related to the processing of ellipsis are, first, how isan ellipsis site detected, and when? And second, what is reconstructed at the ellipsis site,and when? These questions have been mainly investigated using VP ellipsis constructions,such as John took out the trash and Bill did, too, in which did is the ellipsis site. Severalproposals have been put forward as to what is reconstructed at the ellipsis site. Accordingto one approach (Frazier and Clifton 2001), the full syntactic structure of the antecedent(took out the trash, in the example) is reconstructed. Since the syntactic complexity of theantecedent does not affect processing difficulty at the site of ellipsis, it has been proposedthat the copying mechanism employed (copy alpha) is cost-free (Frazier and Clifton 2001),or that structure is shared between the clauses (Frazier and Clifton 2005). An alternativeaccount is that no structure is copied or shared. Instead, the ellipsis site contains a pointerto the antecedent (as in the content-addressable memory approach proposed by Martin andMcElree 2008), or is interpreted as a discourse anaphor (Garnham 2001).

We do not aim to distinguish among these approaches in the present study. Instead, ourfocus is on the question of when the ellipsis site is detected and elided information is accessedand integrated. We will consider two hypotheses: a top-down, predictive approach, and a bot-tom-up approach. Under a top-down approach, an ellipsis site is anticipated before it is clearthat information has been elided. Ellipsis, and verb gapping in particular, typically occursin constructions in which two clauses are coordinated that are structurally and semanticallyparallel (for evidence that the parser is sensitive to parallelism, see Frazier et al. 1984, 2000;Knoeferle and Crocker 2009). Therefore, when the parser encounters a coordinating con-nective and detects that the second clause is parallel to the first, some information of thefirst sentence may already be reactivated before the actual ellipsis is encountered. Support-ing this hypothesis, Callahan et al. (2010) observed that verbs were reactivated when it wasclear that the second, coordinated clause was parallel to the first clause. This reactivation ofverb information occurred even before there was evidence of ellipsis in the input. Similarly,Poirier (2009, experiment 2) reported reactivation of the first clause subject before the siteof the verb phrase ellipsis in the second clause. These results support a top-down, predictivemechanism for processing ellipsis: antecedent information is already reactivated before theactual ellipsis site.

In contrast, according to a bottom-up approach, the ellipsis site is not anticipated butinferred only when words or phrases are “missing” from the input. Supporting this hypoth-esis, a number of studies on verb phrase ellipsis, and related constructions such as sluicing,reported reactivation of antecedent information (subject or object) only at or immediatelyafter the ellipsis site (Poirier 2009, experiment 2; Shapiro and Hestvik 1995, experiment1; Shapiro et al. 2003), or even later, especially when the clause with the ellipsis was sub-ordinate to the first clause (Poirier et al. 2010; Shapiro and Hestvik 1995, experiment 2).This suggests that the antecedent is reactivated only when it is clear to the perceiver thatinformation has been elided. In support of such a bottom-up processing of verb gapping,studies using event related brain potentials (ERPs) reported Left Anterior Negativity (LAN)effects at the first word position after the gapped verb (Kaan et al. 2004; Streb et al. 2004).These effects suggest that the parser did not anticipate the gapped verb, and experiencedprocessing difficulty as a result. The findings of the Kaan et al. (2004) and Streb et al. (2004)ERP studies should be interpreted with caution, however. Neither study directly comparedgapping conditions to well-matched conditions without gapping. It is therefore still unclear

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2013) 42:307–338 309

whether gapped verbs are processed top-down, bottom-up, or perhaps, in both ways (Poirier2009).

In the current study, we used ERPs to further address the processing of verb gapping.We avoided the problems observed in the previous ERP studies by testing verb gappingconstructions in Dutch. In Dutch, the verb comes in the second position in main clauses,but appears clause-finally in subordinate clauses. Since only coordinated main clauses allowgapping, this enables a close comparison between gapping and no-gapping constructions.The experimental paradigm is illustrated in (1). The blank between parentheses indicates thesite of the gapped verb.(1)a. Verb Gapping, Plausible:

Anouk zond de kaart aan haar vader, en Julia (__) de bloemen aan haar moeder.

Anouk sent the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother

“Anouk sent the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother.”

b. Verb Gapping, Implausible:

Anouk schreef de kaart aan haar vader, en Julia (__) de bloemen aan haar moeder.

Anouk wrote the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother

“Anouk wrote the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother.”

c. No Gapping, Plausible:

Anouk zond de kaart aan haar vader, terwijl Julia de bloemen aan haar moeder stuurde.

Anouk sent the card to her father, while Julia the flowers to her mother shipped

“Anouk sent the card to her father, while Julia shipped the flowers to her mother.”

d. No Gapping, control for b:

Anouk schreef de kaart aan haar vader, terwijl Julia de bloemen aan haar moeder stuurde.

Anouk wrote the card to her father, while Julia the flowers to her mother shipped

“Anouk wrote the card to her father, while Julia shipped the flowers to her mother.”

In (1a) and (1b), the second clause is a main clause. In Dutch main clauses, the finite verbappears in the second structural position, and can be gapped when the clause is conjoinedwith another main clause. The first position at which it is clear that the verb in the secondclause has been gapped is therefore the determiner (bold) that introduces the object nounphrase. In (1c) and (1d), on the other hand, the second clause is a subordinate clause, asindicated by the subordinating connective while. In this case, the verb in the second clauseneeds to appear clause-finally; the second clause does not allow verb-second or verb gapping.The conditions in (1c) and (1d) hence, serve as no-gapping controls.

If processing of ellipsis proceeds in a bottom-up fashion, the gapped position is detectedonly at the determiner. We then expect a left anterior negativity (LAN) effect for the gapping

123


versus no-gapping conditions at this position, either in the form of an early LAN (ELAN)because the missing verb creates a phrase structure violation (e.g., Hahne and Friederici1999), or in the form of a later LAN, either because the structure is non-canonical (Rösleret al. 1993), or the antecedent is retrieved from working memory (Kluender and Kutas 1993).

The absence of an (E)LAN effect (in combination with the presence of later semanticand syntactic integration effects), is compatible with a top-down approach. According to thisapproach, the use of a coordinating connective and the parallelism between the first clauseand the first part of the second clause leads to the expectation of verb (phrase) ellipsis. Infor-mation of the first verb may therefore already be retrieved before it is clear from the inputthat a verb is missing, that is, before the determiner is encountered in (1a, b). The occurrenceof the determiner right after the subject in the second clause therefore does not lead to anysyntactic difficulty, and will not elicit an (E)LAN effect (Callahan et al. 2010; Lau et al.2006).

In addition, to test whether and when the elided information is semantically integrated,we manipulated the plausibility of the noun following the critical determiner (underscoredin (1)). A similar manipulation was used in Kaan et al. (2004) for English. In that study, theN400 and P600 components at the critical noun were larger for the implausible comparedwith the plausible control condition, suggesting that the gapped verb was semantically inte-grated immediately after the word that signaled the gap position. To check the time courseof semantic integration in the present paradigm, the noun after the critical determiner eithercould be a plausible (1a) or an implausible (1b) object of the gapped verb. Conditions (1c) and(1d) served as no-gapping controls: the same verb is used in the first clause as in the gappingcounterparts, (1a) and (1b), respectively. Note, however, that in the no-gapping conditions,the second noun phrase in the second clause (de bloemen, ‘the flowers’ in (1)) cannot beinterpreted as the object of the first clause verb. The no-gapping control condition (1d) istherefore plausible, whereas its gapping counterpart (1b) is not. If the gapped verb is recon-structed before or at the noun in the gapping conditions, readers will interpret the noun asimplausible in (1b) versus (1a), leading to a larger N400 and, perhaps, P600 effect in (1b)versus (1a) than in the no-gapping conditions (1d) versus (1c) (Kaan et al. 2004). Finally, ifthe integration of a gapped verb with its object argument involves processes similar to thatof integrating a moved wh-object and its verb (Fiebach et al. 2002; Gouvea et al. 2010; Kaanet al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2005), a P600 is expected at the noun for the gapping (1a, b) versusno-gapping (1c, d) conditions.

In sum, if the ellipsis site is detected bottom-up, we expected a LAN effect at the determinerfor (1a and b) versus (1c and d). If the elided information is semantically and syntacticallyintegrated with the verb immediately, we expect an N400 for (1b vs. a), perhaps followed bya P600 at the noun following the determiner. Finally, if syntactic integration is more effortfulin gapping (1a, b) versus non-gapping (1c, d) constructions, we expect a P600 effect forgapping versus no-gapping constructions at the noun.

Method

Participants

Thirty-eight native speakers of Dutch participated (32 women, 6 men, 18–26 years). Allreported to be right-handed and not to have any neurological problems or disease. None ofthem had participated in the materials pretest (see below). Participants received course credit

123


or a small monetary compensation for their time. Participants gave informed consent beforethe study.

Stimuli

One hundred and twenty-eight quadruplets were constructed according to the format illus-trated in (1). Experimental sentences consisted of two clauses, separated by a comma. Thegapping conditions contained the coordinating connective en (‘and’), and consisted of 14words; the no-gapping conditions contained the subordinating connective terwijl (‘while’),and were 15 words in length. To make the two clauses in each sentence as parallel as possibleand to encourage an interpretation of ‘and’ as coordinating two clauses rather than two objectnoun phrases, the subject in both clauses was always a proper name; the object of the firstclause was always a full noun phrase and, in most cases, referred to an inanimate object.

The object noun phrase used in the second clause was either plausible or implausible asthe object of the verb in the first clause. The plausibility of the items was pretested using anoff-line plausibility rating test. Forty native speakers of Dutch rated the plausibility of eachitem on a scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (acceptable). Items were Latin- Squared over fourlists, and no participant completed more than one list. Items that received a mean score of 3or lower for conditions that were intended to be plausible (1a, c, d) were discarded, as wereitems that received a score of 3 or higher for the implausible condition (1b). The remaining120 items were divided into four lists (Latin Square design), such that each list contained 30different items per condition, and each item appeared in a different version on each list. Dueto an experimenter error, however, three items were omitted from the experiment. Each listhad only 27 rather than 30 items in one of the four conditions (different condition for eachlist). The complete set of the experimental materials used is given in the appendix.

In addition, 96 distractor items were constructed. All consisted of two clauses, and were9–18 words in length. Half of the distractor items contained one or more proper names.Sixteen distractor items contained en (‘and’) without a gapped verb and were plausible; 32contained terwijl (‘while’) and were implausible; 32 contained the coordinating connectivemaar (‘but’) and were plausible (16 of these had a gapped verb); the remaining 16 distractoritems were plausible no-gapping constructions and contained different connectives (such as‘before’, ‘after’, ‘because’).

Procedure

Participants were tested individually. They were seated in front of a computer monitor, at adistance of 80 cm. Sentences were presented word by word in the center of the screen. Eachword was presented for 300 ms, followed by a 200 ms blank screen. Words were presentedin white, Tahoma 14 points font, on a black background. The visual angle was less than 2◦.To help participants fixate on the middle of the screen, words were presented between twohorizontal lines that remained on the screen continuously. A prompt, OK / SLECHT (‘OK /BAD’), appeared 1,500 ms after offset of the sentence final word. Participants were asked toindicate the semantic and syntactic acceptability of each sentence as accurately as possibleat the prompt by pressing a button on a button box: the leftmost button for ‘ok’, rightmostfor ‘bad’. The next trial started 1,000 ms after their response. The experiment started with apractice block of 5 sentences. Feedback was given automatically during practice. No feedbackwas given during the actual experiment. Experimental items and distractors were divided intofour blocks of equal length. Participants were required to rest for a few minutes between the

123


blocks. In addition, they were told to blink only between the sentences. Participants wereallowed to extend the break between the sentences by delaying their acceptability response.The experiment took about 2.5 h per participant in total, including set up.

EEG Recording

EEG was recorded by means of 58 tin electrodes mounted in an elastic cap (Electro-cap). Theelectodes were: FPz, Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, Pz, POz, Oz, AF7/8, FP1/2, AF3/4, F1/2, F3/4, F5/6,F7/8, FC1/2, FC3/4, FC5/6, FT7/8, C1/2, C3/4, C5/6, CP1/2, CP3/4, CP5/6, T7/8, O1/2,P1/2, P3/4, P5/6, P7/8, PO3/4 and PO7/8. An electrode over the right mastoid served as thereference. Electrodes were placed above and below the left eye, and on both outer canthi, tomonitor blinks and horizontal eye movements, respectively. Electrode impedance was keptbelow 5 k�. EEG was recorded using a Brain-Amp amplifier (Brain Products GmbH). Thesignal was filtered on-line between 0.04 and 100 Hz, and was sampled at a rate of 500 Hz.

EEG Analysis

Data from eight participants were excluded from analysis because of technical problems (3participants), because they appeared to be a non-native speaker of Dutch (1 participant), orbecause of an excessive number of eye movements or other artifacts that affected more thanhalf of the trials in a condition (4 participants). Data of the remaining thirty participantswere bandpass filtered off-line between 0.16 and 30 Hz and re-referenced to the mean of bothmastoids. Artifact free epochs of 1,300 ms (including a 100 ms prestimulus baseline) wereaveraged for (1) the critical determiner following the position of the gapped verb (averagepercentage rejected: 19 % of the trials for both gapping and no-gapping conditions); and (2),the noun following the determiner (average percentage rejected: 17–18 % of the trials percondition).

At the critical determiner, the effect of gapping versus no gapping was analyzed using themean amplitude in the 100–200 ms (ELAN) and 400–600 ms (LAN) time windows. At thefollowing noun, we investigated the mean amplitude in the 300–500 ms (N400), 500–700 ms,700–900 ms (P600), and 900–1,200 ms time windows (late positivity). Time windows werebased on the literature and visual inspection.

Analyses were conducted separately for midline sites (Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, Pz) and for thelateral electrode regions: left/right frontal (F7/8, F5/6, F3/4, F1/2), left/right fronto-central(FT7/8, FC5/6, FC3/4, FC1/2), left/right central (T7/8, C5/6, C3/4, C1/2), left/right centro-parietal (CP5/6, CP3/4, CP1/2), left/right parietal (P7/8, P5/6, P3/4, P1/2). For each timewindow, an SPSS repeated measures analysis was carried out with as within-subjects factorsGapping, Plausibility of the verb in the first clause and object in the second (applicable tothe analysis of the noun position only), Anteriority (5 levels), and, for analyses involvinglateral sites, Hemisphere (2 levels). The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used for effectsinvolving factors with more than two levels to control for sphericity violations (Greenhouseand Geisser 1959).

Results

Acceptability Judgments

Mean percentage accuracy in the end-of-sentence judgments was 90.1 % (SD = 8.1) for theplausible gapping condition (1a); 88.7 % (SD = 10.0) for the implausible gapping condition

123


(1b); 88.9 % (SD = 7.8), for the plausible no-gapping condition (1c), and 91.1 % (SD = 7.0)for the no-gapping control for the implausible condition (1d). There was neither an effect ofGapping (F(1, 29) = 0.19, MSE = 0.007, p = .67), nor of the plausibility of the combina-tion of the critical noun and verb in the first clause (F(1, 29) = 0.09, MSE = 0.004, p =.76), nor was there an interaction between Gapping and Plausibility (F(1, 29) = 1.48,MSE = 0.006, p = .23). This suggests that there are no lingering off-line effects of theimplausibility of the combination of the verb in the first clause and critical noun in the no-gapping control condition (1d). As we had intended, the no-gapping control for the implausi-ble condition (1d) is regarded as plausible, whereas the gapping implausible condition (1b),using the same verb and noun phrases, is judged as implausible.

Reaction times for accurate responses also showed no differences between the conditions(Plausible gapping condition (1a) M = 291 ms (SD = 72); Implausible gapping condition(1b) M = 283 ms (SD = 48); Plausible no-gapping condition (1c) M = 291 ms (SD = 64);No-gapping control for the implausible condition (1d) M = 300 ms (SD = 73); Main effectof Gapping F(1, 29) = 1.70, MSE = 1.17, p = .20; Plausibility F(1, 29) = 0.002, MSE =1.11, p = .97; Interaction F(1, 29) = 1.18, MSE = 1.69, p = .29). Reaction times are lessinformative to the purpose of the study, since responses had to be withheld until after the endof the sentence, which was several word positions downstream from the critical words. Wewill therefore not further consider response times below.

ERPs

ERPs at the Determiner

Figure 1 depicts the ERPs for the gapping and no-gapping conditions (collapsed over plau-sibility) at the critical determiner. Although numerically an anterior negativity was observedbetween 100 and 200 ms and between 400 and 600 ms, no effects involving the factor Gap-ping were significant (ps > 0.14 for the 100–200 ms interval; ps > 0.13 for the 400–600 mswindow) for all participants taken together. To investigate whether the overall (E)LAN effectwas attenuated because of individual variation, we correlated the mean difference in ampli-tude between the gapping and no-gapping conditions at the left anterior electrodes (F7, F5,F3, FT7, FC5, FC3) with sentence judgment accuracy of the experimental items. Participantswho judged the experimental sentences least accurately showed a larger 400–600 ms neg-ativity for the gapping versus no-gapping conditions (Pearson’s ρ = 0.37, p = .045), seeFig. 2. This correlation remained significant after an arc-sine transformation of the accuracydata to correct for the skewness of the distribution (ρ = 0.40, p = .031). No such correlationwas found for the 100–200 ms time window (p = .92). To further illustrate the correlation,Figs. 3 and 4 display the ERPs at the F5 electrode for the fifteen best and 15 poorest perform-ers in the end-of-sentence judgment task as determined by a median split of the judgmentaccuracy. We should mention that the poor and high performing groups thus defined did notdiffer in the distribution of the end-of-sentence judgment errors across the four conditions(p = .99), suggesting that poor performance was not due to one specific condition [Per-centage accuracy for the 15 poor performers: Gapping plausible M = 86.1 (SD = 9.2);Gapping implausible M = 85.1 (SD = 12.6); No-gapping plausible M = 85.8 (SD = 8.0);No-gapping control for implausible M = 87.1 (SD = 8.1); For the 15 good performers:Gapping plausible M = 94.1 (SD = 4.1); Gapping implausible M = 92.3 (SD = 4.5);No-gapping plausible M = 92.6 (SD = 5.9); No-gapping control for implausible M = 94.7(SD = 3.5)].

123


Fig. 1 ERPs at the critical determiner for 15 electrode sites, collapsed over plausibility. Dotted line: gapping(1a, b); solid line: no-gapping (1c, d). Negative polarity in this and other figures is plotted up. No differencesbetween the gapping and no-gapping conditions reached significance

Fig. 2 Scatter plot and linear relation between, on the y-axis, participants’ judgment accuracy (proportionaccurate responses over all four conditions) and, on the x-axis, the mean differences in amplitude in the400–600 ms time window between the gapping and no-gapping conditions, collapsed over five left frontalelectrodes (F7, F5, F3, FT7, FC5, FC3). Note that the y-axis starts at 0.75. The poorer the performance on thejudgment task, the larger the left frontal negativity

123


Fig. 3 ERPs at the critical determiner for the F5 electrode, for the 15 best performers on the judgment task(as determined by a median split). Dotted line: gapping (1a, b); solid line: no-gapping (1c, d)

Fig. 4 ERPs at the critical determiner for the F5 electrode, for the 15 poorest performers on the judgmenttask (as determined by a median split). Dotted line: gapping (1a, b); solid line: no-gapping (1c, d). Note the400–600 ms negativity for the gapping versus no-gapping conditions (arrow)

ERPs at the Noun

ERPs at the critical noun are displayed in Fig. 5 for the four conditions (1a–d). No significanteffects involving the factor Plausibility and/or Gapping were obtained in the 300–500 ms timewindow (ps > 0.19). Between 500 and 700 ms, the ERPs to the gapping conditions becamenumerically more positive at posterior sites, but the effect of Gapping by Anteriority onlyapproached significance on lateral sites (midline: F(4, 116) = 1.57, MSE = 2.62, p = .22;lateral: F(4, 116) = 3.73, MSE = 5.25, p = .055). Between 700 and 900 ms after onset ofthe noun, ERPs were more positive in the two gapping conditions, (1a and b), than in the twono-gapping conditions, (1c and d) (midline: F(1, 29) = 11.09, MSE = 36.44, p = .002;lateral: F(1, 29) = 6.31, MSE = 43.55, p = .018). The effect of Gapping was most pro-nounced at posterior sites in the analysis of the lateral electrodes (Gapping by Anteriority,midline: F(4, 116) = 1.09, MSE = 3.28, p = .33; lateral: F(4, 116) = 4.22, MSE =5.68, p = .041). Separate analyses for each level of Anteriority for the lateral sites showedsignificant effects of Gapping only for the centro-parietal (F(1, 29) = 9.46, MSE =

123


Fig. 5 ERPs at the critical noun for 15 electrode sites. Thin dotted line: gapping, plausible condition (1a); thickdotted line: gapping, implausible (1b); thin solid line: no-gapping, plausible (1c); thick solid line: no-gapping,control for implausible (1d). Note the positivity (P600) for gapping versus no-gapping conditions between700 and 900 ms (A), and the continued positivity for the gapping implausible condition (B)

10.84, p = .005) and parietal regions (F(1, 29) = 11.15, MSE = 9.91, p = .002).The 700–900 ms time window showed no effect of Plausibility (midline: F(1, 29) =1.11, MSE = 25.05, p = .30; lateral: F(1, 29) = 1.36, MSE = 32.01, p = .25), or interac-tion between Gapping and Plausibility (midline: F(1, 29) = 2.51, MSE = 31.05, p = .12;lateral: F(1, 29) = 1.25, MSE = 43.39, p = .27).

Later, in the 900–1,200 ms window, only the implausible gapping condition (1b) showed alarger positivity compared with the other three conditions, leading to a significant interactionbetween Gapping and Plausibility (midline: F(1, 29) = 10.17, MSE = 27.64, p = .003;lateral: F(1, 29) = 8.29, MSE = 36.99, p = .007), a main effect of Plausibility (midline:F(1, 29) = 7.23, MSE = 30.71, p = .012; lateral: F(1, 29) = 10.03, MSE = 37.35, p =.004), and a main effect of Gapping (midline: F(1, 29) = 8.33, MSE = 27.30, p = .007;lateral: F(1, 29) = 6.43, MSE = 31.74, p = .017). Pairwise comparisons showed that theERPs for the implausible gapping condition significantly differed from the other three (mid-line: all ps < 0.001; lateral, all ps < 0.007), but that the remaining three conditions did notdiffer from each other (all ps > 0.21). As in the 700–900 ms interval, the Gapping effect inthe 900–1,200 ms window was most pronounced at posterior sites (Gapping by Anteriority,midline: F(4, 116) = 3.90, MSE = 1.92, p = .032; lateral: F(4, 116) = 4.85, MSE =4.30, p = .028). Separate analyses for each level of Anteriority for the lateral sites showsignificant effects of Gapping only for the central (F(1, 29) = 4.21, MSE = 6.24, p =

123


.049), central-parietal (F(1, 29) = 8.82, MSE = 8.70, p = .006), and parietal regions(F(1, 29) = 9.67, MSE = 9.27, p = .004). No significant correlations were found betweenthe effects observed at the noun and sentence judgment accuracy.

To investigate at what point in time the effect of plausibility started to affect the processingof the gapping constructions, we conducted analyses on a sequence of 20 ms time windows,starting from 640 ms. Effects were regarded as present if the p-value was < .05 in at leastthree consecutive intervals (Gunter and Stowe 1997). Analysis of the midline electrodesshowed that the effect of Gapping started in the 720–740 ms window after the onset of thenoun; the interaction between Gapping and Plausibility started only at 860 ms. This suggeststhat initially the gapped verb is syntactically integrated with the noun phrase, regardless ofplausibility. The plausibility of the noun-verb combination affected the processing of thegapping constructions only 140 ms later.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate when the ellipsis site in verb gapping constructionsis detected and when the gapped verb is accessed and integrated. Our predictions were thefollowing. If the gapped position is detected bottom-up, we expected a LAN effect for thegapping versus no-gapping conditions at the determiner, which is the first position signalingthe absence of the verb. If, on the other hand, the gapped verb is anticipated (top-down) basedon the parallelism between the first and second clause, the verb in the first clause would havebeen activated throughout the coordinated second clause (Callahan et al. 2010), and no effectswould be observed at the determiner. In both top-down and bottom-up scenarios, N400 andP600 effects were expected at the noun following the determiner in the implausible gappingcondition. If the verb information is retrieved immediately or is available all along, and issemantically integrated with the noun, a larger N400, and perhaps, larger P600 effect wasexpected for an implausible versus plausible noun following the gap (1b vs. 1a), than forthe same comparison in the no-gapping conditions (1d) versus (1c). Finally, if the process ofintegrating a gapped verb with its argument is similar to the process of integrating a movedwh-phrase argument with its verb, a P600 effect was expected at the noun for both gapping(1a, b) versus no-gapping conditions (1c, d). We discuss our findings below.

Effects at the Determiner

The ERP effects at the determiner, the first possible position at which the gap could bedetected, are compatible with the view that gapped information is processed bottom-up,at least in some individuals. Collapsing over participants, we found no effects at the crit-ical determiner. However, the more poorly the participants performed on the acceptabilityjudgment task, the larger their 400–600 ms LAN effect was for gapping versus no-gappingconditions at the determiner. Our study therefore partly replicates findings from previousstudies that report a comparable negativity for gapping constructions (Kaan et al. 2004; Strebet al. 2004). The detection of the ellipsis at the first possible position is compatible with find-ings from priming studies which report reactivation of the antecedent at or immediately afterthe ellipsis site (Poirier 2009; Shapiro and Hestvik 1995; Shapiro et al. 2003). Note, however,that the LAN effect in the present study is rather late (400–700 ms), compared to 100–300 msELAN-effects in the previous studies. The later LAN effect suggests that the participants inour study did not experience the combination of a proper name followed by a determiner as anoutright ungrammaticality (assuming that the early LAN is a reflection of a phrase structure

123


violation, e.g., Hahne and Friederici 1999), but rather interpreted the determiner as a cuethat the sentence was grammatical, yet missing an element. A sequence of a noun (propername) followed by a determiner is much more frequent in Dutch than in English, hence, thedeterminer may not have been interpreted as a phrase structure violation in the present study,as opposed to the English constructions tested by Kaan et al. (2004). In addition, the earlyLAN effect in the Streb et al. (2004) study in German may have been due to ambiguity of thephrase preceding the critical word. In the Streb et al. study, the proper name preceding thegapped position could either be the subject or indirect object of the second clause. The criti-cal word, which indicated that the verb was gapped, also disambiguated the preceding nounphrase as the subject of the clause (which may have been a non-preferred structure, see, e.g.,Carlson 2001). In the present experiment, in contrast, the proper name preceding the criticalword was likely to be interpreted as the subject of the second clause rather than the indirectobject, and hence, was unlikely to trigger syntactic reanalysis at the post-gap position. The(later) LAN in the current study can then be interpreted to reflect either the reactivation ofthe antecedent (Kluender and Kutas 1993), dealing with a non-canonical structure (Rösleret al. 1993), or an increase in working memory load related to these processes (Coulson et al.1998).

Our results also suggest that the processing of gapping is subject to individual variation.Participants who showed a larger LAN at the determiner may have processed the secondclause in a bottom-up fashion, that is, they did not anticipate a gapping construction andinferred only at the determiner that the verb was gapped. These participants, however, wereworse at constructing or retrieving the meaning of the sentence as a whole, as shown by theirpoorer performance on the end of sentence acceptability judgment task. Other participantsmay have employed a predictive parsing strategy and expected a gapping construction due tothe parallelism of the structure (Callahan et al. 2010). Alternatively, they may have delayedanalysis until they encountered the second noun in the second clause. In either case, thesereaders did not show LAN effects at the determiner following the proper name. Yet, theseparticipants were better at semantically evaluating the sentence at the end of the trial. Unfor-tunately, the current study does not allow us to investigate what the underlying differencesare between individuals who elicited LAN effects at the critical position and those who didnot. Potential factors may be differences in working memory span (Just and Carpenter 1992;MacDonald et al. 1992; but see Otten and Van Berkum 2009) and/or language experience(Acheson et al. 2008), among other things. For instance, participants with ample readingexperience may have encountered more sentences in the past that involved parallelism andgapping than participants with less experience. The more experienced readers, but not theless experienced, may therefore have anticipated the gapped verbs in our experiment moresystematically (resulting in no or a smaller LAN), and may have kept better track of thesemantics of the entire sentence, leading to better performance at the probe position. Thedifference between predictive and bottom-up parsing is similar to what has been proposedto explain differences in sentence processing between native speakers and advanced secondlanguage learners on the one hand, and less proficient second-language learners, on the other(Kaan et al. 2010). The ability to anticipate information during sentence processing may betied to higher language proficiency in general.

Plausibility Effects at the Noun

Even though a subset of our participants showed effects of gapping at the determiner, sig-nificant effects of semantic integration between the noun and the gapped verb were seenstarting only at 860 ms after noun onset. No N400 effect was observed for the implausible

123


versus plausible gapping conditions (versus their no-gapping controls), and no correlationwas found between amplitude differences at the noun and the end-of-sentence judgment.Moreover, the positivity observed for the gapping versus no-gapping conditions at the nounbetween 700 and 900 ms was not affected by plausibility. This suggests that, even thoughthe semantic information of the gapped verb may have been available or retrieved beforethe noun, this information was not used and integrated immediately. This is in contrast toa previous study on verb gapping in English (Kaan et al. 2004), which did show an N400effect when the gapped verb was implausible in combination with the object remnant in thesecond clause. One explanation for this difference is that the Kaan et al. (2004) study did notuse a no-gapping control condition. The N400 effect observed in this study may thereforehave been due to differences in semantic fit in the context of the critical noun between theplausible and implausible conditions, regardless of gapping. An alternative explanation isthat the participants in our current study may have been in a ‘syntactic processing mode’.Even though the end-of-sentence judgment task was semantic in nature, the incongruencybetween the noun and the gapped verb is a function of the relation between the first andsecond clause, and, hence, syntactically driven. As a result, participants’ attention may havebeen drawn towards the syntactic aspects of the sentences. A number of studies have reportedP600 effects rather than N400 effects for apparent semantic violations, especially when par-ticipants are asked to give acceptability judgments (e.g., Kim and Osterhout 2005; Kolk et al.2003; Kuperberg et al. 2006; Van Herten et al. 2006), see Kuperberg (2007) for an overview.The focus on syntactic processing in the current study may also have delayed the semanticintegration of the verbs and noun. Previous research has shown that semantic integration canbe blocked in case of phrase structure violations (Hahne and Friederici 2002), or when theparticipant’s attention is drawn to syntactic aspects of the stimuli (Isel and Shen 2011). Thismay explain why the semantic anomaly affected the positivity only later (after 860 ms). The‘syntactic processing mode’ explanation for the effects at the noun is not incompatible withthe accounts we proposed of the individual variation in the LAN effects at the determinerpreceding the noun. Participants may differ in the extent to which they anticipate upcomingsyntactic structure when in a syntactic processing mode: Some may actively anticipate a gap-ping construction, some may not, and may realize that the verb has been gapped only at thedeterminer; others may wait till the noun is encountered before integrating the noun phraseinto the syntactic structure. In any of these cases, attention may initially still be primarily onsyntactic aspects of the input.

Gapping Effects at the Noun

The 700–900 ms posterior positivity observed at the noun for gapping versus no-gappingconditions, regardless of the semantic fit between the gapped verb and the noun, is similarto the P600 effects found for the integration of a wh-phrase and its base position (Fiebachet al. 2002; Gouvea et al. 2010; Kaan et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2005). This suggests that inte-grating an elided verb with its object involves the same processes as integrating a displacedwh-object with its base position or verb.

An alternative explanation for the P600 effect found for the gapping versus no-gappingconstructions is that the proposition is complete at the critical noun phrase, and both subjectand object NP can be integrated with the verb in the gapping conditions, whereas the verbinformation is still missing at the comparable noun position in the no-gapping construction.The P600 effect found in this study may therefore not be related to the presence of a displacedelement, but rather to having processed a verb with all its arguments. However, previous ERPstudies on wh-dependencies have shown a P600 effect at the verb position (Gouvea et al. 2010)

123


or at a base position before the verb (Fiebach et al. 2002) even though the proposition wasincomplete at this position. This suggests that a complete proposition is not necessary forintegration to occur and a P600 to be elicited. Future research needs to determine if a P600effect can be elicited independently of non-local dependencies. Regardless of what the P600reflects, the current results do suggest that in our gapping construction, the elided informationis retrieved at or before the noun and is integrated into the structure, similarly to what hasbeen observed for wh-dependencies.

One candidate mechanism for accessing both the dislocated wh-phrase in wh-movementconstructions and the antecedent of ellipses, is content-addressible memory (Martin andMcElree 2008). “Content-addressable” means that the information associated with the ante-cedent or wh-phrase can be accessed directly, without having to search serially throughpreviously processed material in working memory. A feature of this mechanism is that itis insensitive to the distance between the dependent elements, in contrast to a serial searchmodel. Using the speed-accuracy tradeoff technique, McElree and colleagues observed thataccessing the antecedent in ellipsis constructions (Martin and McElree 2008) as well aswh-dependencies (McElree et al. 2003) indeed was unaffected by linear distance.

Once the antecedent information is accessed, it is syntactically integrated by means of amechanism that is reflected by the P600. Studies suggest that this integration mechanism isinsensitive to the length of the dependency as well: in ERPs studies that manipulated the dis-tance between the moved wh-phrase and its base position (Fiebach et al. 2002; Phillips et al.2005), the amplitude of the P600 found at the base position was not sensitive to the distancebetween the dependent elements (even though the P600 latency was affected by distance,Phillips et al. (2005)). If indeed ellipsis and wh-movement are processed by means of thesame mechanism, both the LAN and the P600 effect in gapping constructions are predictedto be insensitive to the distance between the antecedent verb and the gapping site, keepingeverything else constant. Results from Streb et al. (2004) suggest otherwise, but need to bereplicated with better controlled conditions.

To conclude, our results suggest that the “missing” verb in verb gapping constructionscan be detected at the first possible position (bottom-up), but that this is subject to individualvariation. Early detection, however, does not imply that the antecedent verb is immediatelyand fully integrated into the structure. Rather, the semantic and syntactic integration of thegapped verb is a relatively late process (at least under the current experimental conditions),and involves mechanisms similar to integrating a wh-phrase object with its verb (Gouveaet al. 2010; Kaan et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2005).

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Leon Kenemans and Marieke Lansbergen at the Department ofExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, for providing access to their lab facilities,Sanne Tolboom for assisting with materials construction and running participants, and Grace Park for her helpwith data processing.

Appendix: Materials

Dutch materials used in the experiment and literal English translations. English paraphrasesare given for example 1 only. Condition a: Gapping, plausible; b: Gapping, implausible; c:No-Gapping plausible; d: No-Gapping, control for b.

1a. Lisa tekende de vaas voor het raam, en Thomas de bijen in de tuin.Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard.“Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard.”

123


1b. Lisa brak de vaas voor het raam, en Thomas de bijen in de tuin.Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard.“Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard.”1c. Lisa tekende de vaas voor het raam, terwijl Thomas de bijen in de tuin wegjoeg.Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, while Thomas the bees in the yard chased-away.“Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, while Thomas chased away the bees in theyard.”1d. Lisa brak de vaas voor het raam, terwijl Thomas de bijen in de tuin wegjoeg.Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, while Thomas the bees in the yard chased-away.“Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, while Thomas chased away the bees in the yard.”

2a/b. Renate bekritiseerde/ organiseerde de staking van de monteurs, en Mariska de houdingvan de arbeiders.Renate critized/organized the strike of the mechanics, and Mariska the stance of the laborers.2c/d. Renate bekritiseerde/ organiseerde de staking van de monteurs, terwijl Mariska dehouding van de arbeiders afkeurde.Renate critized/organized the strike of the mechanics, while Mariska the stance of the laborersreproached.

3a/b. Tessa vroeg/ ontvouwde de plattegrond van de stad, en Simon de weg naar het post-kantoor.Tessa asked for/ unfolded the map of the city, and Simon directions to the post office.3c/d. Tessa vroeg/ ontvouwde de plattegrond van de stad, terwijl Simon de weg naar hetpostkantoor wees.Tessa asked for/ unfurled the map of the city, while Simon directions to the post office gave.

4a/b. Yvonne verzamelde/ verscheurde de posters van de zangeres, en Maarten de CD’s vande band.Yvonne collected/tore up the poster of the female singer, and Maarten the CDs of the band.4c/d. Yvonne verzamelde/verscheurde de posters van de zangeres, terwijl Maarten de CD’svan de band bewaarde.Yvonne collected/tore up the poster of the female singer, while Maarten the CDs of the bandsaved.

5a/b. Richard oefende/ neuriede de liedjes voor het concert, en Jolien de dans voor de voor-stelling.Richard practiced/hummed the songs for the concert, and Jolien the dance for the perfor-mance.5c/d. Richard oefende/ neuriede de liedjes voor het concert, terwijl Jolien de dans voor devoorstelling doornam.Richard practiced/hummed the songs for the concert, while Jolien the dance for the perfor-mance rehearsed.

6a/b. Karolien bedacht/ illustreerde het boek over het klimaat, en Sara de video over hetmilieu.Karolien conceptualized/illustrated the book about the climate, and Sara the video about theenvironment.6c/d. Karolien bedacht/ illustreerde het boek over het klimaat, terwijl Sara de video over hetmilieu regisseerde.Karolien conceptualized/illustrated the book about the climate, while Sara the video aboutthe environment directed.

123


7a/b. Tim sopte/ dweilde de vloer in de kamer, en Erik de koelkast in de keuken.Tim scrubbed/mopped the floor in the room, and Erik the fridge in the kitchen.7c/d. Tim sopte/dweilde de vloer in de kamer, terwijl Erik de koelkast in de keuken afnam.Tim scrubbed/mopped the floor in the room, while Erik the fridge in the kitchen cleaned.

8a/b. Manon legde/ braadde de hamburger op de barbecue, en Fiona de lepels op de tafel.Manon put/grilled the hamburger on the barbecue, and Fiona the spoons on the table.8c/d. Manon legde/ braadde de hamburger op de barbecue, terwijl Fiona de lepels op de tafelrangschikte.Manon put/grilled the hamburger on the barbecue, while Fiona the spoons on the tablearranged.

9a/b. Gerrit roemde/ beloonde de knecht vanwege zijn werklust, en Sjoerd de truck vanwegezijn trekkracht.Gerrit praised/rewarded the servant for his energy, and Sjoerd the truck for its power.9c/d. Gerrit roemde/ beloonde de knecht vanwege zijn werklust, terwijl Sjoerd de truckvanwege zijn trekkracht aanprees.Gerrit praised/rewarded the servant for his energy, while Sjoerd the truck for its power rec-ommended.

10a/b.Carla wiste/ beluisterde het interview op het bandje, en Jantien de software op dediskette.Carla deleted/listened to the interview on the tape, and Jantien the software on the floppydrive.10c/d. Carla wiste/ beluisterde het interview op het bandje, terwijl Jantien de software op dediskette installeerde.Carla deleted/listened to the interview on the tape, while Jantien the software on the floppydrive installed.

11a/b. Emma nam/at de ijscoupe van de dag, en Kevin de koffie van de week.Emma had/ate the sundae daily-special, and Kevin the coffee weekly-special.11c/d. Emma nam/at de ijscoupe van de dag, terwijl Kevin de koffie van de week dronk.Emma had/ate the sundae daily-special, while Kevin the coffee weekly special-drank.

12a/b. Anouk zond/ schreef de kaart aan haar vader, en Julia de bloemen aan haar moeder.Anouk sent/wrote the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother.12c/d. Anouk zond/schreef de kaart aan haar vader, terwijl Julia de bloemen aan haar moederstuurde.Anouk sent/wrote the card to her father, while Julia the flowers to her mother shipped.

13a/b. Inez bereidde/ fileerde de forel voor het diner, en Robert de quiche voor de lunch.Inez prepared/filleted the trout for the dinner, and Robert the quiche for the lunch.13c/d. Inez bereidde/ fileerde de forel voor het diner, terwijl Robert de quiche voor de lunchaanreikte.Inez prepared/filleted the trout for the dinner, while Robert the quiche for the lunch passedalong.

14a/b. Jeroen koos/ breide de sjaal van de voetbalclub, en Rik de blouse van het hockeyteam.Jeroen selected/knitted the scarf of the soccer team, and Rik the jersey of the hockey team14c/d. Jeroen koos/ breide de sjaal van de voetbalclub, terwijl Rik de blouse van het hockey-team aantrok.Jeroen selected/knitted the scarf of the soccer team, while Rik the jersey of the hockey teamput on.

123


15a/b. Kim zocht/las de brief van haar vriend, en Daan de foto van zijn vriendin.Kim looked for/read the letter from her friend, and Daan the picture of his girlfriend.15c/d. Kim zocht/las de brief van haar vriend, terwijl Daan de foto van zijn vriendin ophing.Kim looked for/read the letter from her friend, while Daan the picture of his girlfriend putup.

16a/b. Britt pakte/ smeerde de crackers voor haar dochter, en Amber de cola voor haar zoon.Britt took/prepared the crackers for her daughter, and Amber the coke for her son.16c/d. Britt pakte/ smeerde de crackers voor haar dochter, terwijl Amber de cola voor haarzoon inschonk.Britt took/prepared the crackers for her daughter, while Amber the coke for her son poured.

17a/b. Nick voltooide/ zeilde de tocht over de oceaan, en Lars de wandeling door de woestijn.Nick completed/sailed the voyage over the ocean, and Lars the hike through the desert17c/d. Nick voltooide/ zeilde de tocht over de oceaan, terwijl Lars de wandeling door dewoestijn aflegde.Nick completed/sailed the voyage over the ocean, while Lars the hike through the desertfinished.

18a/b. Mike snoeide/ plukte de rozen in het perkje, en Lotte de bomen in de tuin.Mike pruned/picked the roses in the bed, and Lotte the trees in the yard.18c/d. Mike snoeide/ plukte de rozen in het perkje, terwijl Lotte de bomen in de tuin omhakte.Mike pruned/picked the roses in the bed, while Lotte the trees in the yard chopped.

19a/b. Lucas verzorgde/ roskamde de paarden in de stal, en Ernst de kippen op het erf.Lucas took care of/ brushed the horses in the stable, and Ernst the chickens in the courtyard.19c/d. Lucas verzorgde/ roskamde de paarden in de stal, terwijl Ernst de kippen op het erfvoerde.Lucas took care of/ brushed the horses in the stable, while Ernst the chickens in the courtyardfed.

20a/b. Karin schilderde/ beklom de bergen bij de kust, en Michelle de bossen op het eiland.Karin painted/climbed the mountains near the coast, and Michelle the woods on the island.20c/d. Karin schilderde/ beklom de bergen bij de kust, terwijl Michelle de bossen op heteiland doorwandelde.Karin painted/climbed the mountains near the coast, while Michelle the woods on the islandhiked-through.

21a/b. Femke bracht/smolt de kaas voor de fondue, en Niels de likeur voor het toetje.Femke brought/melted the cheese for the fondue, and Niels the liquor for the dessert.21c/d. Femke bracht/smolt de kaas voor de fondue, terwijl Niels de likeur voor het toetjemeenam.Femke brought/melted the cheese for the fondue, while Niels the liquor for the dessert pro-vided.

22a/b. Melissa serveerde/ bakte de cake met de nootjes, en Sam de yoghurt met het fruit.Melissa served/baked the cake with the nuts, and Sam the yogurt with the fruit.22c/d. Melissa serveerde/ bakte de cake met de nootjes, terwijl Sam de yoghurt met het fruitopdiende.Melissa served/baked the cake with the nuts, while Sam the yogurt with the fruit served.

23a/b. Tom reinigde/ schuurde de treden van de trap, en Jesse de plaid op de bank.Tom cleaned/sanded the steps of the staircase, and Jesse the blanket on the couch.

123


23c/d. Tom reinigde/schuurde de treden van de trap, terwijl Jesse de plaid op de bankuitklopte.Tom cleaned/sanded the steps of the staircase, while Jesse the blanket on the couch shookout.

24a/b. Susan telde/ kalmeerde de kinderen in de bus, en Edwin de tassen in de kofferbak.Susan counted/calmed the children on the bus, and Edwin the bags in the trunk.24c/d. Susan telde/ kalmeerde de kinderen in de bus, terwijl Edwin de tassen in de kofferbakopstapelde.Susan counted/calmed the children on the bus, while Edwin the bags in the trunk stacked.

25a/b. Bram veilde/ brandde de CD van de rock-ster, en Daphne de prenten van de kunstenaar.Bram auctioned/burned the CD of the rockstar, and Daphne the prints of the artist.25c/d. Bram veilde/ brandde de CD van de rock-ster, terwijl Daphne de prenten van dekunstenaar bekeek.Bram auctioned/burned the CD of the rockstar, while Daphne the prints of the artist inspected.

26a/b. Robin zag/ plantte de geraniums in het plantsoen, en Milan de stenen langs het tuinpad.Robin saw/planted the geraniums in the park, and Milan the rocks along the garden path.26c/d. Robin zag/ plantte de geraniums in het plantsoen, terwijl Milan de stenen langs hettuinpad stapelde.Robin saw/planted the geraniums in the park, and Milan the rocks along the garden pathstacked.

27a/b. Sophie haalde/ zaagde de planken voor de schutting, en Dennis de kussens voor detuinstoelen.Sophie took/sawed the planks for the fence, and Dennis the cushions for the deck chairs.27c/d. Sophie haalde/ zaagde de planken voor de schutting, terwijl Dennis de kussens voorde tuinstoelen uitzocht.Sophie took/sawed the planks for the fence, while Dennis the cushions for the deck chairsselected.

28a/b. Joris verorberde/ lepelde de soep met de balletjes, en Tineke de salade met de tomaten.Joris devoured/spooned the soup with the meatballs, and Tineke the salad with the tomatoes.28c/d. Joris verorberde/ lepelde de soep met de balletjes, terwijl Tineke de salade met detomaten klaarmaakte.Joris devoured/spooned the soup with the meatballs, while Tineke the salad with the tomatoesprepared.

29a/b. Hilde onderhield/ maaide het gazon in de voortuin, en Ralph de paden in de achtertuin.Hilde maintained/ mowed the lawn in the front yard, and Ralph the paths in the back yard.Hilde onderhield/ maaide het gazon in de voortuin, terwijl Ralph de paden in de achtertuinharkte.Hilde maintained/ mowed the lawn in the front yard, while Ralph the paths in the back yardraked.

30a/b. Dorien gebruikte/ strooide de talkpoeder op haar voeten, en Frederik de deo onderzijn oksels.Dorien used/sprinkled the talcum powder on her feet, and Frederik the deodorant on hisarmpits.

123


30c/d. Dorien gebruikte/ strooide de talkpoeder op haar voeten, terwijl Frederik de deo onderzijn oksels spoot.Dorien used/sprinkled the talcum powder on her feet, while Frederik the deodorant on hisarmpits sprayed.

31a/b. Bob stuurde/ reed de auto naar het westen, en Victor de boot richting het oosten.Bob steered/drove the car towards the west, and Victor the boat towards the east.31c/d. Bob stuurde/ reed de auto naar het westen, terwijl Victor de boot richting het oostenlaveerde.Bob steered/drove the car towards the west, while Victor the boat towards the east navigated.

32a/b. Bianca filmde/ schoor de schapen in het weiland, en Simone de tractor op de dijk.Bianca filmed/shaved the sheep in the meadow, and Simone the tractor on the levy.32c/d. Bianca filmde de schapen/ schoor in het weiland, terwijl Simone de tractor op de dijkfotografeerde.Bianca filmed/shaved the sheep in the meadow, while Simone the tractor on the levy photo-graphed.

33a/b. Remco kocht/ poetste de schoenen met de veters, en Hugo de broek met de streepjes.Remco bought/polished the shoes with the laces, and Hugo the trousers with the stripes.33c/d. Remco kocht/ poetste de schoenen met de veters, terwijl Hugo de broek met destreepjes ruilde.Remco bought/polished the shoes with the laces, while Hugo the trousers with the stripesexchanged.

34a/b. Wouter repareerde/ plakte de band van de fiets, en Chantal de remmen van de brommer.Wouter fixed/patched the tire of the bike, and Chantal the breaks of the moped.34c/d. Wouter repareerde/ plakte de band van de fiets, terwijl Chantal de remmen van debrommer controleerde.Wouter fixed/patched the tire of the bike, while Chantal the breaks of the moped checked.

35a/b. Sabine accentueerde/ epileerde de wenkbrauwen van het fotomodel, en Evelien delippen van de actrice.Sabine accentuated/ depilated the eyebrows of the model, and Evelien the lips of the actress.35c/d. Sabine accentueerde/ epileerde de wenkbrauwen van het fotomodel, terwijl Eveliende lippen van de actrice stiftte.Sabine accentuated/ depilated the eyebrows of the model, while Evelien the lips of the actresspainted.

36a/b. Eline won/ boekte de reis naar het eiland, en Moniek de koelkast met de vriezer.Eline won/booked the trip to the island, and Moniek the fridge with the freezer.36c/d. Eline won/boekte de reis naar het eiland, terwijl Moniek de koelkast met de vriezerontving.Eline won/booked the trip to the island, while Moniek the fridge with the freezer received.

37a/b. Mirjam volbracht/ liep de wandeling in drie uur, en Maud de fietstocht in dertigminuten.Mirjam finished/ walked the hiking route in 3 h, and Maud the cycling tour in 30 min.37c/d. Mirjam volbracht/liep de wandeling in drie uur, terwijl Maud de fietstocht in dertigminuten aflegde.Mirjam finished/ walked the hiking route in 3 h, while Maud the cycling tour in 30 mincompleted.

123


38a/b. Ellen noteerde/ berekende de score van de deelnemers, en Hans de namen van descheidsrechters.Ellen took down/ calculated the score of the participants, and Hans the names of the referees.38c/d. Ellen noteerde/ berekende de score van de deelnemers, terwijl Hans de namen van descheidsrechters opschreef.Ellen took down/ calculated the score of the participants, while Hans the names of the refereeswrote-down.

39a/b. Natalie veroverde/ hees de vlag bij het teamspel, en Marloes de prijs bij de quiz.Natalie captured/hoisted the flag at the team game, and Marloes the prize for the quiz.39c/d. Natalie veroverde/ hees de vlag bij het teamspel, terwijl Marloes de prijs bij de quizbemachtigde.Natalie captured /hoisted the flag at the team game, while Marloes the prize for the quizgrabbed.

40a/b. Koen verving/ timmerde de kast in de woonkamer, en Judith de lamp in de gang.Koen replaced/nailed-together the cabinet in the living room, and Judith the light in thehallway.40c/d. Koen verving/ timmerde de kast in de woonkamer, terwijl Judith de lamp in de gangophing.Koen replaced/nailed-together the cabinet in the living room, and Judith the light in thehallway put-up.

41a/b. Ruud gooide/ rolde de bal naar het doel, en Kristel de pijltjes naar het dartbord.Ruud threw/rolled the ball towards the goal, and Kristel the darts towards the dartboard.41c/d. Ruud gooide/ rolde de bal naar het doel, terwijl Kristel de pijltjes naar het dartbordwierp.Ruud threw/rolled the ball towards the goal, while Kristel the darts towards the dartboardthrusted.

42a/b. Laurens prees/ feliciteerde de kampioenen van het toernooi, en Anita de sfeer tijdensde wedstrijden.Laurens praised/ congratulated the champions of the tournament, and Anita the atmosphereduring the games.42c/d. Laurens prees/ feliciteerde de kampioenen van het toernooi, terwijl Anita de sfeertijdens de wedstrijden bejubelde.Laurens praised/ congratulated the champions of the tournament, while Anita the atmosphereduring the games lauded.

43a/b. Saskia bewonderde/ aaide de marmot in het hok, en Karlijn de goudvis in het aquarium.Saskia admired/stroked the guinea pig in the cage, and Karlijn the goldfish in the aquarium.43c/d. Saskia bewonderde/ aaide de marmot in het hok, terwijl Karlijn de goudvis in hetaquarium voerde.Saskia admired/stroked the guinea pig in the cage, while Karlijn the goldfish in the aquariumfed.

44a/b. Michiel observeerde/ molk de koeien in de stal, en Lisette de ganzen op het veld.Michiel observed/milked the cows in the stable, and Lisette the geese in the fields.44c/d. Michiel observeerde/ molk de koeien in de stal, terwijl Lisette de ganzen op het veldvoerde.Michiel observed/milked the cows in the stable, while Lisette the geese in the fields fed.

123


45a/b. Christien herstelde/ naaide de jurk van haar moeder, en Nienke de bril van haar vader.Christien repaired/sewed the dress of her mother, and Nienke the glasses of her father.45c/d. Christien herstelde/ naaide de jurk van haar moeder, terwijl Nienke de bril van haarvader rechtzette.Christien repaired/sewed the dress of her mother, while Nienke the glasses of her fatherstraightened.

46a/b. Patrick maakte/ verloor de punten in het begin, en Nicole de fout aan het einde.Patrick scored/lost the points at the start, and Nicole the foul at the end.46c/d. Patrick maakte/ verloor de punten in het begin, terwijl Nicole de fout aan het eindetoegaf.Patrick scored/lost the points at the start, while Nicole the foul at the end admitted.

47a/b. Jacob waste/ kookte de boontjes in wat water, en Rens de borden in een sopje.Jacob washed/cooked the beans in some water, and Rens the plates in some suds.47c/d. Jacob waste de boontjes/ kookte in wat water, terwijl Rens de borden in een sopjeweekte.Jacob washed/cooked the beans in some water, and Rens the plates in some suds soaked.

48a/b. Paulien verloor/ vouwde het krantje van de sportclub, en Willem de CD van hetschoolorkest.Paulien lost/folded the newspaper of the sportsteam, and Willem the CD of the school orches-tra.48c/d. Paulien verloor/ vouwde het krantje van de sportclub, terwijl Willem de CD van hetschoolorkest vond.Paulien lost/folded the newspaper of the sportsteam, while Willem the CD of the schoolorchestra found.

49a/b. Luuk droeg/ vulde de mand met het fruit, en Daniël de pillen van de apotheek.Luuk carried/filled the basket with the fruit, and Daniel the pills of the pharmacy.49c/d. Luuk droeg/ vulde de mand met het fruit, terwijl Daniël de pillen van de apotheekophaalde.Luuk carried/filled the basket with the fruit, while Daniel the pills of the pharmacy pickedup.

50a/b. Bas onderzocht/ trok de melktand van zijn dochtertje, en Inge de wondjes van haarzoontje.Bas checked/pulled the tooth of his daughter, and Inge the bruises of her son.50c/d. Bas onderzocht/ trok de melktand van zijn dochtertje, terwijl Inge de wondjes vanhaar zoontje verbond.Bas checked/pulled the tooth of his daughter, and Inge the bruises of her son bandaged.

51a/b. Naomi leende/ startte de motor van haar oom, en Eva de step van haar nichtje.Naomi borrowed/started the motorcyle of her granny, and Eva the scooter of her cousin.51c/d. Naomi leende/ startte de motor van haar oom, terwijl Eva de step van haar nichtjewegzette.Naomi borrowed/started the motorcycle of her granny, and Eva the scooter of her cousin putaway.

52a/b. Thijs verfde/ sloot de deur van de schuur, en Denise de muur in de keuken.Thijs painted/closed the door of the shed, and Denise the wall in the kitchen.

123


52c/d. Thijs verfde/ sloot de deur van de schuur, terwijl Denise de muur in de keuken pla-muurde.Thijs painted/closed the door of the shed, while Denise the wall in the kitchen spackled.

53a/b. Melanie deed/ goot de thee in de thermosfles, en Jordy de broodjes in de lunchbox.Melanie put/poured the tea in the thermos, and Jordy the sandwiches in the lunch box.53c/d. Melanie deed/ goot de thee in de thermosfles, terwijl Jordy de broodjes in de lunchboxplaatste.Melanie put/poured the tea in the thermos, while Jordy the sandwiches in the lunch boxplaced.

54a/b. Floor beroofde/ opende de winkel op een zondag, en David de vrouw op een vrijdag.Floor robbed/opened the store on a Saturday, and David the women on a Friday.54c/d. Floor beroofde/ opende de winkel op een zondag, terwijl David de vrouw op eenvrijdag aansprak.Floor robbed/opened the store on a Saturday, while David the women on a Friday addressed.

55a/b. Bart deed/ kauwde de druif in zijn mond, en Vera de wijn in haar glas.Bart put/chewed the grape in his mouth, and Vera the wine in her glass.55c/d. Bart deed/ kauwde de druif in zijn mond, terwijl Vera de wijn in haar glas opdronk.Bart put/chewed the grape in his mouth, while Vera the wine in her glass drank.

56a/b. Jasper kende/ sprak de taal van de Kelten, en Gerard de cultuur van de Azteken.Jasper knew/spoke the language of the Celts, and Gerard the culture of the Azteks.56c/d. Jasper kende/ sprak de taal van de Kelten, terwijl Gerard de cultuur van de Aztekenbestudeerde.Jasper knew/spoke the language of the Celts, while Gerard the culture of the Azteks studied.

57a/b. Marieke bestelde/ huurde het servies voor de party, en Maaike de hapjes voor dereceptie.Marieke ordered/rented the china for the party, and Maaike the finger food for the reception.57c/d. Marieke bestelde/ huurde het servies voor de party, terwijl Maaike de hapjes voor dereceptie voorbereidde.Marieke ordered/rented the china for the party, while Maaike the finger food for the receptionprepared.

58a/b. Nina regelde/ ontstak de grill voor het etentje, en Ruben de bierpomp voor hetbuurtfeest.Nina arranged/lit the grill for the dinner, and Ruben the tap for the neighborhood party.58c/d. Nina regelde/ ontstak de grill voor het etentje, terwijl Ruben de bierpomp voor hetbuurtfeest aansloot.Nina arranged/lit the grill for the dinner, while Ruben the tap for the neighborhood partyhooked-up.

59a/b. Ben probeerde/ roosterde de spiesjes met de paprika, en Sandra de wijn met de vrucht-jes.Ben tried/ roasted the kebabs with the bellpeppers, and Sandra the wine with the fruits.59c/d. Ben probeerde/ roosterde de spiesjes met de paprika, terwijl Sandra de wijn met devruchtjes inschonk.Ben tried/ roasted the kebabs with the bellpeppers, while Sandra the wine with the fruitspoured.

123


60a/b. Janneke verplaatste/ verbrandde het hout op het terras, en Sander de rotsen bij devijver.Janneke moved/burned the wood on the patio, and Sander the rocks by the pond.60c/d. Janneke verplaatste/ verbrandde het hout op het terras, terwijl Sander de rotsen bij devijver opstapelde.Janneke moved/burned the wood on the patio, and Sander the rocks by the pond piled-up.

61a/b. Mieke recenseerde/ kaftte het boek over de stoornis, en Irma de folder over de ziekte.Mieke reviewed/laminated the book about the disorder, and Irma the flyer about the illness.61c/d. Mieke recenseerde/ kaftte het boek over de stoornis, terwijl Irma de folder over deziekte doorbladerde.Mieke reviewed/laminated the book about the disorder, while Irma the flyer about the illnessleafed-through.

62a/b. Gert transporteerde/ bediende de hijskraan van de aannemer, en Henri de steiger vande schilder.Gert transported/operated the crane of the contractor, and Henri the scaffolding of the painter.62c/d. Gert transporteerde/ bediende de hijskraan van de aannemer, terwijl Henri de steigervan de schilder opbouwde.Gert transported/operated the crane of the contractor, while Henri the scaffolding of thepainter built.

63a/b. Vivian verzon/ dichtte de lofzang op het bruidspaar, en Babette de puzzelrit voor hetvrijgezellenfeest.Vivian came up with/ composed the ode to the bridal couple, and Babette the scavenger huntfor the bachelor’s party.63c/d. Vivian verzon/ dichtte de lofzang op het bruidspaar, terwijl Babette de puzzelrit voorhet vrijgezellenfeest uitzette.Vivian came up with/ composed the ode to the bridal couple, while Babette the scavengerhunt for the bachelor’s party staked-out.

64a/b. Alex koerste/ trapte de waterfiets naar de kade, en Julian de roeiboot naar de haven.Alex steered/paddled the paddle boat towards the wharf, and Julian the rowboat towards theport.64c/d. Alex koerste/ trapte de waterfiets naar de kade, terwijl Julian de roeiboot naar de havenvoer.Alex steered/paddled the paddle boat towards the wharf, while Julian the rowboat to the portfloated.

65a/b. Rachel sneed/ frituurde de aardappelen voor de ovenschotel, en Marijke de taart voorhet dessert.Rachel cut/fried the potatoes for the casserole, and Marijke the pie for the dessert.65c/d. Rachel sneed/ frituurde de aardappelen voor de ovenschotel, terwijl Marijke de taartvoor het dessert klaarzette.Rachel cut/fried the potatoes for the casserole, while Marijke the pie for the dessert put out.

66a/b. Amanda vertroetelde/ borstelde de kat van de buren, en Josine de kanarie van haartante.Amanda spoiled/brushed the cat of the neighbors, and Josine the canary of her aunt.66c/d. Amanda vertroetelde/ borstelde de kat van de buren, terwijl Josine de kanarie van haartante voerde.Amanda spoiled/brushed the cat of the neighbors, while Josine the canary of her aunt fed.

123


67a/b. Albert besprak/ ontsloeg de werknemer van zijn bedrijf, en Samuel de inrichting vanzijn kantoor.Albert discussed/fired the employee in his company, and Samuel the interior of his office.67c/d. Albert besprak/ ontsloeg de werknemer van zijn bedrijf, terwijl Samuel de inrichtingvan zijn kantoor beoordeelde.Albert discussed/fired the employee in his company, while Samuel the interior of his officeevaluated.

68a/b. Roy speelde/ danste de tango tijdens het open podium, en Paula de smartlap op hetfeest.Roy played/danced the tango during the open podium, and Paula the croon song at the party.68c/d. Roy speelde/ danste de tango tijdens het open podium, terwijl Paula de smartlap ophet feest uitvoerde.Roy played/danced the tango during the open podium, while Paula the croon song at theparty performed.

69a/b. Rosalie besprak/ beledigde de leerlingen tijdens de vergadering, en Guido de proble-men tijdens het mentoruur.Rosalie discussed/ offended the students during the meeting, and Guido the problems duringoffice hours.69c/d. Rosalie besprak/ beledigde de leerlingen tijdens de vergadering, terwijl Guido deproblemen tijdens het mentoruur oploste.Rosalie discussed/ offended the students during the meeting, while Guido the problemsduring office hours solved.

70a/b. Casper streelde/ vlocht het haar van zijn vriendin, en Leonie de hand van haar vriend.Casper stroked/braided the hair of his friend, and Leonie the hand of her boyfriend.70c/d. Casper streelde/ vlocht het haar van zijn vriendin, terwijl Leonie de hand van haarvriend opwarmde.Casper stroked/braided the hair of his friend, while Leonie the hand of her boyfriend warmed.

71a/b. Fred belde/ riep de medewerkster om twee uur, en Alwin de winkel om half drie.Fred phoned/called-at the coworker at two o’clock, and Alwin the store at two thirty.71c/d. Fred belde/ riep de medewerkster om twee uur, terwijl Alwin de winkel om half driemailde.Fred phoned/called-at the coworker at two o’clock, while Alwin the store at two thirtyemailed.

72a/b. Claudia knipte/ krulde het haar van haar dochter, en Willeke de nagels van haar zoon.Claudia cut/curled the hair of her daughter, and Willeke the nails of her son.72c/d. Claudia knipte/ krulde het haar van haar dochter, terwijl Willeke de nagels van haarzoon vijlde.Claudia cut/curled the hair of her daughter, while Willeke the nails of her son filed.

73a/b. Sjaak zong/ floot het refrein van de zomerhit, en Nico de tekst van de popsong.Sjaak sang/whistled the refrain of the summerhit, and Nico the lyrics of the popsong.73c/d. Sjaak zong/ floot het refrein van de zomerhit, terwijl Nico de tekst van de popsongopschreef.Sjaak sang/whistled the refrain of the summerhit, while Nico the lyrics of the popsong took-down.

123


74a/b. Micha vervuilde/ kapte de bossen van de amazone, en Egbert de rivieren in de jungle.Micha polluted/cut-down the forest of the Amazon, and Egbert the rivers in the jungle.74c/d. Micha vervuilde/ kapte de bossen van de amazone, terwijl Egbert de rivieren in dejungle verontreinigde.Micha polluted/cut-down the forest of the Amazon, and Egbert the rivers in the junglepoluted.

75a/b. Stijn gaf/ schudde de kaarten van het kwartetspel, en Marie de pionnen van bordspel.Stijn gave out/shuffled the cards of the game, and Marie the pieces of the board game.75c/d. Stijn gave out/ schudde de kaarten van het kwartetspel, terwijl Marie de pionnen vanhet bordspel klaarzette.Stijn gave/ shuffled the cards of the game, while Marie the pieces of the board game put-out.

76a/b. Karen hoorde/ stemde de gitaar van haar zoon, en Jaap de ruzie van de buren.Karen heard/tuned the guitar of her son, and Jaap the conflict of the neighbors.76c/d. Karen hoorde/ stemde de gitaar van haar zoon, terwijl Jaap de ruzie van de burenwaarnam.Karen heard/tuned the guitar of her son, while Jaap the conflict of the neighbors perceived.

77a/b. Jelle betaalde/ annuleerde de tickets aan de balie, en Anton de brochure aan de kassa.Jelle paid/cancelled the tickets at the desk, and Anton the booklet at the register.77c/d. Jelle betaalde/ annuleerde de tickets aan de balie, terwijl Anton de brochure aan dekassa afrekende.Jelle paid/cancelled the tickets at the desk, while Anton the booklet at the register paid.

78a/b. Hidde hechtte/ gipste het been van de patiënt, en Agnes de snee van de jongen.Hidde stitched/cast the leg of the patient, and Agnes the cut of the boy.78c/d. Hidde hechtte/ gipste het been van de patiënt, terwijl Agnes de snee van de jongendesinfecteerde.Hidde stitched/cast the leg of the patient, while Agnes the cut of the boy disinfected.

79a/b. Harry kopieerde/ vertaalde het spijkerschrift in het museum, en Gerrie de tekeningenin het archief.Harry copied/translated the cuneiform in the museum, and Gerrie the drawings in the archive.79c/d. Harry kopieerde / vertaalde het spijkerschrift in het museum, terwijl Gerrie de teken-ingen in het archief fotografeerde.Harry copied/translated the cuneiform in the museum, while Gerrie the drawings in thearchive photographed.

80a/b. Mira schilde/ perste de sinaasappels voor het ontbijt, en Erica de courgette voor hettussendoortje.Mira peeled/squeezed the oranges for the breakfast, and Erica the zucchini for the snack.80c/d. Mira schilde/ perste de sinaasappels voor het ontbijt, terwijl Erica de courgette voorhet tussendoortje meenam.Mira peeled/squeezed the oranges for the breakfast, while Erica the zucchini for the snackpacked.

81a/b. Berend monteerde/ soldeerde de uitlaat op de brommer, en Jelmer de voorruit in deauto.Berend mounted/soldered the exhaust onto the moped, and Jelmer the windshield in the car.

123


81c/d. Berend monteerde/ soldeerde de uitlaat op de brommer, terwijl Jelmer de voorruit inde auto lijmde.Berend mounted/soldered the exhaust onto the moped, while Jelmer the windshield in thecar glued.

82a/b. Ilse raapte/ kraakte de noten in het park, en Florine de appels in de boomgaard.Ilse picked-up/cracked the nuts in the park, and Florine the apples in the orchard.82c/d. Ilse raapte/ kraakte de noten in het park, terwijl Florine de appels in de boomgaardverzamelde.Ilse picked-up/cracked the nuts in the park, while Florine the apples in the orchard collected.

83a/b. Arthur bespeelde/ blies de trompet in de fanfare, en Isolde de drums in de band.Arthur played/blew the trumpet in the marching band, and Isolde the drums in the band.83c/d. Arthur bespeelde/ blies de trompet in de fanfare, terwijl Isolde de drums in de bandverzorgde.Arthur played/ blew the trumpet in the marching band, while Isolde the drums in the bandtook-care-of.

84a/b. Leon temde/ zadelde het paard op de ranch, en Jennie de leeuwin in de dierentuin.Leon tamed/ saddled the horse on the ranch, and Jennie the lioness in the zoo.84c/d. Leon temde/ zadelde het paard op de ranch, terwijl Jennie de leeuwin in de dierentuinbedwong.Leon tamed/ saddled the horse on the ranch, while Jennie the lioness in the zoo restrained.

85a/b. Jet renoveerde/ besteeg de toren aan de kade, en Jos de fontein op het dorpsplein.Jet restored/climbed the tower at the wharf, and Jos the fountain in the village square.85c/d. Jet renoveerde/ besteeg de toren aan de kade, terwijl Jos de fontein op het dorpspleinopknapte.Jet restored/climbed the tower at the wharf, while Jos the fountain in the village square fixed.

86a/b. Carolien bezocht/ reserveerde de balzaal van het kasteel, en Mark de ruïnes van hetbadhuis.Carolien visited/reserved the ballroom of the castle, and Mark the ruins of the bath house.86c/d. Carolien bezocht/ reserveerde de balzaal van het kasteel, terwijl Mark de ruïnes vanhet badhuis bestudeerde.Carolien visited/reserved the ballroom of the castle, while Mark the ruins of the bath housestudied.

87a/b. Yara verschoof/ bekleedde de stoelen van de eettafel, en Marij de tafel van de zithoek.Yara moved/upholstered the chairs of the dining set, and Marij the table in the living area.87c/d. Yara verschoof/ bekleedde de stoelen van de eettafel, terwijl Marij de tafel van dezithoek schoonmaakte.Yara moved/upholstered the chairs of the dining set, while Marij the table in the living areacleaned.

88a/b. Henk bottelde/ brouwde het bier in de fabriek, en Adrie de wijn in de proeverij.Henk bottled/brewed the beer in the factory, and Adrie the wine in the winery.88c/d. Henk bottelde/ brouwde het bier in de fabriek, terwijl Adrie de wijn in de proeverijproefde.Henk bottled/brewed the beer in the factory, while Adrie the wine in the winery sampled.

123


89a/b. Maartje schatte/ mat de afstand naar het restaurant, en Lieke de prijs van het hoofd-gerecht.Maartje estimated/measured the distance to the restaurant, and Lieke the cost of the maincourse.89c/d. Maartje schatte/ mat de afstand naar het restaurant, terwijl Lieke de prijs van hethoofdgerecht opzocht.Maartje estimated/measured the distance to the restaurant, while Lieke the cost of the maincourse looked-up.

90a/b. Jan bemestte/ verpotte de kamerplant in de winter, en Klara de moestuin in het voorjaar.Jan fertilized/repotted the houseplant in the winter, and Klara the vegetable garden in thespring.90c/d. Jan bemestte/ verpotte de kamerplant in de winter, terwijl Klara de moestuin in hetvoorjaar inzaaide.Jan fertilized/repotted the houseplant in the winter, while Klara the vegetable garden in thespring seeded.

91a/b. Emmy vervoerde/ kamde de pony van de manege, en Evy de zadels van de ruiters.Emmy transported/brushed the pony of the riding school, and Evy the saddles of the horseriders.91c/d. Emmy vervoerde/ kamde de pony van de manege, terwijl Evy de zadels van de ruitersuitlaadde.Emmy transported/brushed the pony of the riding school, while Evy the saddles of the horseriders unloaded.

92a/b. Karel opereerde/ amputeerde de arm van de gewonde, en Vincent de buik van hetslachtoffer.Karel performed surgery on/ amputated the arm of the wounded, and Vincent the stomachof the victim.92c/d. Karel opereerde/ amputeerde de arm van de gewonde, terwijl Vincent de buik van hetslachtoffer bekeek.Karel performed surgery on/ amputated the arm of the wounded, while Vincent the stomachof the victim inspected.

93a/b. Florentien beschermde/ beboste het regenwoud in het zuiden, en Merel de ijskap inhet noorden.Florentien protected/re-forested the rainforest in the south, and Merel the icecap in the north.93c/d. Florentien beschermde/ beboste het regenwoud in het zuiden, terwijl Merel de ijskapin het noorden redde.Florentien protected/re-forested the rainforest in the south, while Merel the icecap in thenorth saved.

94a/b. Mart likte/ beet de lolly van het stokje, en Ida de stroop van de lepel.Mart licked/bit the lollipop off the stick, and Ida the syrup from the spoon.94c/d. Mart likte/ beet de lolly van het stokje, terwijl Ida de stroop van de lepel sabbelde.Mart licked/bit the lollipop off the stick, while Ida the syrup from the spoon sucked.

95a/b. Arie beheerde/ bebouwde de akkers aan de oostzijde, en Teun de vijver in het westen.Arie managed/cultivated the fields on the eastside, and Teun the pond on the westside.95c/d. Arie beheerde/ bebouwde de akkers aan de oostzijde, terwijl Teun de vijver in hetwesten dregde.

123


Arie managed/ cultivated the fields on the eastside, while Teun the pond on the westsidedredged.

96a/b. Klaas bespotte/ ontkrachtte de argumenten van zijn opponent, en Pieter de haardosvan zijn tegenstander.Klaas ridiculed/rebutted the arguments of his opponents, and Pieter the hairdo of his oppo-nent.96c/d. Klaas bespotte/ ontkrachtte de argumenten van zijn opponent, terwijl Pieter de haardosvan zijn tegenstander afkraakte.Klaas ridiculed/rebutted the arguments of his opponents, while Pieter the hairdo of his oppo-nent slashed.

97a/b. Roeland oliede/ verzette de tafel van de tuinset, en Mees de vloer in de hal.Roeland waxed/moved the table of the patio set, and Mees the floor in the hallway.97c/d. Roeland oliede/ verzette de tafel van de tuinset, terwijl Mees de vloer in de hal schoon-maakte.Roeland waxed/moved the table of the patio set, while Mees the floor in the hallway cleaned.

98a/b. Peter ontmaskerde/ arresteerde de bedenker van de oplichterij, en Danny de methodevan de fraudeur.Peter exposed/arrested the master mind behind the fraud, and Danny the method of the fraud.98c/d. Peter ontmaskerde/ arresteerde de bedenker van de oplichterij, terwijl Danny de meth-ode van de fraudeur doorgrondde.Peter exposed/arrested the master mind behind the fraud, while Danny the method of thefraud.

99a/b. Isa kreeg/ verstelde de fiets van haar oma, en Tina de kano van haar vriend.Isa received/adjusted the bike of her grandma, and Tina the canoe of her friend.99c/d. Isa kreeg/ verstelde de fiets van haar oma, terwijl Tina de kano van haar vriend verfde.Isa received/adjusted the bike of her grandma, while Tina the canoe of her friend painted.

100a/b. Margot registreerde/ spelde de namen van de atleten, en Anna de uitslag van dewedstrijd.Margot recorded/spelled the names of the athletes, and Anna the results of the race.100c/d. Margot recorded/ spelde de namen van de atleten, terwijl Anna de uitslag van dewedstrijd bekendmaakte.Margot registered/spelled the names of the athletes, while Anna the results of the raceannounced.

101a/b. Leo duwde/ roeide de kano naar de kant, en Marius de auto naar de garage.Leo pushed/rowed the canoe to the shore, and Marius the car to the garage.101c/d. Leo duwde/ roeide de kano naar de kant, terwijl Marius de auto naar de garagesleepte.Leo pushed/rowed the canoe to the shore, while Marius the car to the garage towed.

102a/b. Marlies verkocht/ plaagde de hond van de buren, en Irene de sofa van haar ouders.Marlies sold/teased the dog of the neighbors, and Irene the sofa of her parents102c/d. Marlies verkocht/ plaagde de hond van de buren, terwijl Irene de sofa van haar oudersophaalde.Marlies sold/teased the dog of the neighbors, while Irene the sofa of her parents picked-up.

123


103a/b. Marleen eindigde/ rende de marathon in de middag, en Hannes de autorace in deavond.Marleen finished/ran the marathon in the afternoon, and Hannes the car race in the evening.103c/d. Marleen eindigde/ rende de marathon in de middag, terwijl Hannes de autorace inde avond finishte.Marleen finished/ran the marathon in the afternoon, while Hannes the car race in the eveningfinished.

104a/b. Margreet gebruikte/ mengde de verf van de Hema, en Thijme de kwast van de spe-cialist.Margreet used/mixed the paint from the Hema-store, and Thijme the brush of the specialtystore.104c/d. Margreet gebruikte/ mengde de verf van de Hema, terwijl Thijme de kwast van despecialist schoonmaakte.Margreet used/mixed the paint from the Hema-store, while Thijme the brush of the specialtystore cleaned.

105a/b. Rex sorteerde/ plastificeerde de foto’s van de vakantie, en Lilly de was uit de reistas.Rex sorted/laminated the pictures of the vacation, and Lilly the laundry from the travel bag.105c/d. Rex sorteerde/ plastificeerde de foto’s van de vakantie, terwijl Lilly de was uit dereistas opvouwde.Rex sorted/laminated the pictures of the vacation, while Lilly the laundry from the travel bagfolded.

106a/b. Betty verwarmde/ pofte de aardappelen voor het diner, en Mara de peren voor hetdessert.Betty reheated/roasted the potatoes for the dinner, and Mara the pears for the dessert.106c/d. Betty verwarmde/ pofte de aardappelen voor het diner, terwijl Mara de peren voorhet dessert stoofde.Betty reheated/roasted the potatoes for the dinner, while Mara the pears for the dessert stewed.

107a/b. Lara lakte/ parkeerde de auto in de garage, en Piet de spoiler op de oprit.Lara painted/parked the car in the garage, and Piet the spoiler in the driveway.107c/d. Lara lakte/ parkeerde de auto in de garage, terwijl Piet de spoiler op de oprit klaar-legde.Lara painted/parked the car in the garage, while Piet the spoiler in the driveway put out.

108a/b. Max bevestigde/ schroefde de planken aan de wand, en Annelies de vitrage aan derail.Max mounted/screwed the shelves to the wall, and Annelies the lace curtains to the track.108c/d. Max bevestigde/ schroefde de planken aan de wand, terwijl Annelies de vitrage aande rail ophing.Max mounted/screwed the shelves to the wall, while Annelies the lace curtains to the trackhung.

109a/b. Anneke zette/ stak de schep in de grond, en Paul de bezem tegen de muur.Anneke put/dug the shovel into the ground, and Paul the broom against the wall.109c/d. Anneke zette/ stak de schep in de grond, terwijl Paul de bezem tegen de muur plaatste.Anneke put/dug the shovel into the ground, while Paul the broom against the wall placed.

110a/b. Meike hing/ scheurde het gordijn in de slaapkamer, en Lizzy de lamp in de keuken.Meike hung/tore the curtain in the bed room, and Lizzy the lamp in the kitchen.

123


110c/d. Meike hing/ scheurde het gordijn in de slaapkamer, terwijl Lizzy de lamp in dekeuken bekeek.Meike hung/tore the curtain in the bed room, while Lizzy the lamp in the kitchen inspected.

111a/b. Iris knoopte/ ritste de jas van haar dochter, en Lex de sjaal van zijn zoon.Iris knotted/zipped-up the coat of her daughter, and Lex the scarf of his son.111c/d. Iris knoopte/ ritste de jas van haar dochter, terwijl Lex de sjaal van zijn zoon omsloeg.Iris knotted/zipped-up the coat of her daughter, while Lex the scarf of his son wrapped-aroundhim.

112a/b. Marijn verwijderde/ krabde de verf van het raam, en Arend de lamp van de muur.Marijn removed/scraped the paint off the window, and Arend the light from the wall.112c/d. Marijn verwijderde/ krabde de verf van het raam, terwijl Arend de lamp van de muurrukte.Marijn removed/scraped the paint off the window, while Arend the light from the wall pulled.

113a/b. Marga navigeerde/ vloog het vliegtuig naar het zuiden, en Job de schepen door hetkanaal.Marga navigated/flew the airplane south, and Job the ships through the canal.113c/d. Marga navigeerde/ vloog het vliegtuig naar het zuiden, terwijl Job de schepen doorhet kanaal loodste.Marga navigated/flew the airplane south, and Job the ships through the canal steered.

114a/b. Dagmar betreurde/ verstopte het rapport van het bestuur, en Florian de uitingen vande commissie.Dagmar regretted/hid the report of the board, and Florian the statement of the committee.114c/d. Dagmar betreurde/ verstopte het rapport van het bestuur, terwijl Florian de uitingenvan de commissie afkeurde.Dagmar regretted/hid the report of the board, while Florian the statement of the committeedisapproved.

115a/b. Francien poederde/ snoot de neus van haar dochter, en Bella de wangen van haarnichtje.Francien powdered/blew the nose of her daughter, and Bella the cheeks of her niece.115c/d. Francien poederde de neus van haar dochter, terwijl Bella de wangen van haar nichtjeschoonmaakte.Francien powdered/blew the nose of her daughter, while Bella the cheeks of her niece cleaned.

116a/b. Barbara gaf/ schonk de thee met een citroentje, en Pascal de koekjes met de chocola.Barbara offered/poured the tea with a lemon wedge, and Pascal the cookies with the choco-late.116c/d. Barbara gaf/ schonk de thee met een citroentje, terwijl Pascal de koekjes met dechocola uitdeelde.Barbara offered/poured the tea with a lemon wedge, while Pascal the cookies with the choc-olate passed-around.

117a/b. Kees vulde/ bestuurde de wagen van de boer, en Floris de schuur van de veehouder.Kees filled/drove the truck of the farmer, and Floris the barn of the cattle-farmer.117c/d. Kees vulde/ bestuurde de wagen van de boer, terwijl Floris de schuur van de vee-houder opruimde.Kees filled/drove the truck of the farmer, while Floris the barn of the cattle-farmer cleaned.

123


References

Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure andreading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 278–289.

Callahan, S. M., Shapiro, L. P., & Love, T. (2010). Parallelism effects and verb activation: The sustainedreactivation hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 101–118.

Carlson, K. (2001). The effects of parallelism and prosody in the processing of gapping structures. Languageand Speech, 44, 1–26.

Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response tomorphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21–58.

Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs andsyntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal ofMemory and Language, 47, 250–272.

Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. J. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax, 4, 1–22.Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. J. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8, 121–174.Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C. J. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic

Research, 29, 343–370.Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., & Clifton, C. J. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in

sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 12, 421–430.Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora Hove. UK: Psychology Press.Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D. (2010). The linguistic processes underlying the

P600. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 149–188.Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24,

95–112.Gunter, T. C., & Stowe, L. A. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660–676.Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis:

Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194–205.Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as

revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339–356.Isel, F., & Shen, W. (2011). Modulation of semantic integration as a function of syntactic expectations:

Event-related brain potential evidence. NeuroReport, 22, 195–199.Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in

working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Kaan, E., Dallas, A. C., & Wijnen, F. (2010). Syntactic predictions in second-language sentence pro-

cessing. In J.-W. Zwart & M. de Vries (Eds.), Structure preserved. Festschrift in the honor of JanKoster (pp. 208–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integrationdifficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.

Kaan, E., Wijnen, F., & Swaab, T. Y. (2004). Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for immediateprocessing of “missing” verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 89, 584–592.

Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence fromevent-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.

Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unboundeddependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214.

Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2009). Constituent order and semantic parallelism in online comprehension:Eye-tracking evidence from German. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2338–2371.

Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity inverbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.

Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. BrainResearch, 1146, 23–49.

Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. (2006). Neural correlates ofprocessing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and CognitiveProcesses, 21, 489–530.

Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntacticanalysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.

MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processingof syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98.

Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehensionof verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879–906.

123


McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehen-sion. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.

Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). Does working memory capacity affect the ability to predictupcoming words in discourse. Brain Research, 1291, 92–101.

Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distancedependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407–428.

Poirier, J. (2009). Finding meaning in silence: The comprehension of ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California, San Diego and San Diego State University, United States Retrieved from ProQuestDigital Dissertations (AAT 3358671).

Poirier, J., Wolfinger, K., Spellman, L., & Shapiro, L. P. (2010). The real-time processing of sluicedsentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 411–427.

Rösler, F., Putz, P., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials while encounteringsemantic and syntactic constraint violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 345–362.

Shapiro, L. P., & Hestvik, A. (1995). On-line comprehension of VP-ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction andsemantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 517–532.

Shapiro, L. P., Hestvik, A., Lesan, L., & Garcia, A. R. (2003). Charting the time-course of VP-ellipsissentence comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural analysis. Journal ofMemory and Language, 49, 1–19.

Streb, J., Henninghausen, E., & Rosler, F. (2004). Different anaphoric expressions are investigated byevent-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 175–201.

Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERPevidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197.

123

Processing Gapped Verbs

Documents

Transcript of Processing Gapped Verbs