![Tattoo ambigram generator](https://kumkoniak.com/27.jpg)
Existing accounts propose that past processing, which requires a link to discourse, is more complex than future processing, which-like the present-is locally bound. We also investigated the role of verbs (in isolation within sentences) and adverbs (deictic non-deictic) during time processing. Are the past and future processed similarly or differently? In this study, we addressed this question by investigating how Spanish speakers process past/future time reference violations during sentence processing, while recording eye movements. They also intrinsically differ: the past refers to inalterable events the future to alterable events, to possible worlds.
![tattoo ambigram generator tattoo ambigram generator](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ea/be/68/eabe68c267dcea24adcda37651579b14.jpg)
Both the past and future imply a temporal displacement of an event outside the "now". The ability to think about non-present time is a crucial aspect of human cognition. The accuracy effect is argued to reflect a post-interpretive difficulty associated with generating/maintaining a propositional representation of passives required by specific tasks. Verbal WM measures did not correlate with the difference in accuracy, excluding it as an explanation. When comprehension targeted theta-roles assignment, passives were more errorful, regardless of verb type. The reading time facilitation is compatible with broader expectation/surprisal theories. This contradicts the claim that passives are difficult to parse and/or interpret, as argued by main perspectives of passive processing (heuristic or syntactic). Across 4 experiments (self-paced reading with comprehension questions), passives were consistently read faster than actives. Stative passives are temporarily ambiguous (adjectival vs verbal), eventive passives are not (always verbal).
![tattoo ambigram generator tattoo ambigram generator](http://www.newdesignfile.com/postpic/2010/06/ambigram-tattoos-design-generators_302680.png)
Tattoo ambigram generator Offline#
The current paper directly compares online and offline processing of passivization and manipulates verb type: state vs event. Previous online-only studies cast doubt on this generalization. Passive sentences are considered more difficult to comprehend than active ones. We suggest that Dutch parsers have a preference for adjunct attachment of preverbal PPs, and discuss our findings in terms of incremental parsing models that aim to minimize costly reanalysis. While we found no reading-time differences between argument and adjunct PPs, we did find that transitive verbs, for which the PP is an argument, were read more slowly than intransitive verbs, for which the PP is an adjunct. In a self-paced reading task, we manipulated the argument/adjunct status of the PP, and its position relative to the verb. This ambiguity is resolved by the sentence-final verb.
![tattoo ambigram generator tattoo ambigram generator](http://www.articlesweb.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/nggallery/tattoo-ambigram-generator-4/Tattoo-Ambigram-11.jpg)
In De aannemer heeft op het dakterras bespaard/gewerkt ‘The contractor has on the roof terrace saved/worked’, the PP is locally ambiguous between attachment as argument and as adjunct. This study investigates how temporarily ambiguous PPs are processed in Dutch verb-final constructions.
![tattoo ambigram generator tattoo ambigram generator](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/71/50/66715096ddd0d83c212ec27df0baddbb.jpg)
Incremental comprehension of head-final constructions can reveal structural attachment preferences for ambiguous phrases. Os autores usaram a técnica de rastreamento ocular para examinar o processamento de sentenças nas quais se encontravam um verbo de bitransitividade e um nome potencialmente transitivo, com a expectativa de encontrar um efeito na região do SP, isto é, um efeito imediato de status argumental. Desta perspectiva, Boland & Blodgett (2006) analisaram a aposição de SPs em sentenças temporariamente ambíguas, manipulando o local de aposição, se ao sintagma nominal ou ao sintagma verbal, e o status argumental, se argumento ou adjunto, com o objetivo de testar a hipótese geral de que argumentos e adjuntos são processados por mecanismos diferentes. Nesta linha, a vantagem dos argumentos relaciona-se, particularmente, à informação de frequência, porque apenas estruturas especificadas no léxico sujeitam-se às restrições impostas pela frequência relativa de uso, em consequência, apenas o processamento de argumentos pode ser influenciado pela informação de frequência (BOLAND & BOEHM-JERNIGAN, 1998 BOLAND & BLODGETT, 2006).
![Tattoo ambigram generator](https://kumkoniak.com/27.jpg)