The Effects of a Pragmatic Factor in the Processing ofJapanese Benefactive Constructions
Hajime KATAOKA and Kentaro NAKATANI
Konan University
It is argued [1–3] that a sentence like (1a) causes a stronger processing difficultythan a sentence like (1b).
(1) a.
b.

Nakamura-ga [tyuuko-no pasokon-o katta toki] syuurisite-kureta„When I bought a second hand PC, Nakamura repaired the PC for me.‟[Nakamura-ga tyuuko-no pasokon-o katta toki] syuurisite-ageta„When Nakamura bought a second hand PC, I repaired the PC for him.‟

The first NP Nakamura-ga is likely to be initially analyzed as the subject of the embedded
clause because two consecutive items are likely to be analyzed as a part of the same clause
unless there is a necessity to parse otherwise ([1], [2]). In (1a), however, this analysis turns
out to be wrong when -kureta is reached because the embedded subject should refer to thespeaker.
However, is kureta always harder than ageta? 1 Note that both sentences in (1)involve two main verbs, katte and syuurisite, while there is only one nominative NP
Nakamura-ga. Thus a null pronoun must fill in the missing subject position. Assumingthat Nakamura is initially analyzed as the embedded subject, we can hypothesize that pro
is inserted when syuurisite is encountered (before kureru/ageru) and is coindexed with
Nakamura (we ignore object pro for simplicity):(1‟)[Nakamurai-ga tyuko-no pasokon-o katta toki] proi syuurisite ...
This reanalysis turns out to be wrong in both (1a) and (1b). Nevertheless, (1a) is harderthan (1b), probably because (1a) involves a “structural” reanalysis (changing the clauseboundary), whereas in (1b), the preexisting pro is reinterpreted without a structural change.
A question remains, however, as to whether the latter “interpretive” reanalysis is cost- free.
It should also be noted that what is driving the reanalysis in (1a) is the pragmatic
relationship between the embedded event and the matrix event: the two events arepragmatically likely to be conducted by two different agents. That is to say, in (1a),Nakamura repaired the PC for me, so the reasonable inference is that the PC must be mine,and thus the person who bought the PC must be I, not Nakamura. We call this a“pragmatically biasing” factor. If we eliminate this factor, two events can be conducted by
the same subject, and there would be no need for the structural reanalysis in (1a), while
the interpretive reanalysis would still be needed in (1b). In other words, while kureru isharder to read than ageru under the biasing condition, ageru could be harder to read than1

An anonymous reviewer pointed out that kureru and ageru may require different syntactic analyses.
We do not exclude such a possibility, although our goal was not to test it. Our goal was to examine if
the pragmatic factor interacts with kureru and with ageru in a different manner.

kureru under the neutral condition.
To test the costs of the two types of reanalysis (structural and interpretive) and theeffects of the biasing factor, we conducted a self-paced reading experiment:(2) a. Biasing/Kureru (incurring a structural reanalysis)
Otonarisan- ga [pro(I) ryoko-ni itta-toki] petto-o azukatte-kureta„When I went on a trip, the neighbor took care of the pet for me.‟b.

Biasing/Ageru(incurring an interpretive reanalysis)[Otonarisan-ga ryoko- ni itta-toki] pro(I) petto-o azukatte-ageta„When the neighbor went on a trip, I took care of the pet for him/her.‟c.

Neutral/Kureru (no reanalysis)[Otonarisani-ga ryoko- ni itta-toki] proi dengon-o azukatte-kureta„When the neighbor went on a trip, he/she took a message for me.‟d.

Neutral/Ageru (incurring an interpretive reanalysis)[Otonarisan-ga ryoko- ni itta-toki] pro(I) dengon-o azukatte-ageta„When the neighbor went on a trip, I took a message for him/her.‟

Our predictions are as follows:
1. The interpretive reanalysis in (2b, d) should be costly.
2.

In (2b), however, the pragmatic factor biasing for a disjoint subject reading

3.

would facilitate this reanalysis, nullifying the expected cost.
(2c) should be easy because there is no need for a reanalysis at all.

4.

In (2a), in contrast, a structural reanalysis is forced by the biasing pragmaticfactor. This reanalysis is not facilitated by the biasing factor, because there
would have been no need for a reanalysis if it were not for this pragmatic5.

bias in the first place.
A structural reanalysis is probably more costly than an interpretive
reanalysis.

Thus we predict that (2a) is the hardest, (2d) is the second hardest, and (2b, c) are easy.
The results (n=41) overall supported our predictions. (i) In the critical region(azukatte-kureta/ageta), we found an interaction between the two factors (F1=3.93,
p=.054; F2=4.92, p < .05) in such a way that the pragmatic factor facilitated the Ageru
sentences while slowing down the Kureru sentences. (ii) In the same region, under theNeutral context, (2d) was slower than (2c) (ps <.05), indicating a cost for an interpretivereanalysis. (iii) In the spillover region, there was an interaction of the two factors (ps< .05) such that (2a) was significantly slower than all the other conditions (all ps < .05).
Selected references: [1] Mazu ka, R., & Itoh, K. 1995. In R. Mazuka and N. Nagai, eds., Japanese syntacticprocessing, pp. 295-332; [2] Nagata, H. 1993. In Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, pp. 365-381; [3]Tokimoto, S., & Nakanishi, K. 2000. In Nihon Ninchikagakukai Taikai Happyou Ronbunshu 17, pp. 58-59.