Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque

Cognition

Volumn 115, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 79-92

  Carreiras, Manuel ^a,b,c   Duñabeitia, Jon Andoni ^a   Vergara, Marta ^d   de la Cruz Pavía, Irene ^c   Laka, Itziar ^c  

^a BASQUE CENTER ON COGNITION   (Spain)

^b BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Ergativity; Parsing; Relative clauses

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; BRAIN MAPPING; CEREBRAL CORTEX; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; READING;

EID: 77549084893     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.012     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Aduriz I., Aranzabe M.J., Arriola J.M., Atutxa A., Díaz de Ilarraza A., Ezeiza N., et al. Methodology and steps towards the construction of EPEC, a corpus of written Basque tagged at morphological and syntactic levels for the automatic processing. In: Wilson A., Rayson P., and Archer D. (Eds). Corpus linguistics around the world. Language and computers Vol. 56 (2006), Rodopi, The Netherlands. 90-420-1836-4 1-15
2. Artiagoitia, X. (1992). Why Basque doesn't relativize everything? In Lakarra & Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax (Vol. 27, pp. 11-35) San Sebastian: "Julio de Urquijo" International Basque Philology Seminar.
3. Artiagoitia, X. (1990). A Unified Account of Relativization in Basque, U. of Washington, MA thesis.
4. Baker M. The atoms of language (2001), Basic Books, New York
5. Barber H., and Carreiras M. Grammatical gender and number agreement in spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17 1 (2005) 137-153
6. Betancort M., Carreiras M., and Sturt P. The processing of subject and object relative clause in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62 (2009) 1915-1929
7. Bever T. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In: Hayes J.R. (Ed). Cognition and the development of language (1970), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 279-352
8. Boland J.E. The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 12 (1997) 423-484
9. Caplan D., Vijayan S., Kuperberg G., West C., Waters G., Greve D., et al. Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human Brain Mapping 15 (2002) 26-38
10. Carreiras M., Salillas E., and Barber H. Event related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish. Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 98-105
11. Chien-Jer, C.L. & Bever, T. (2006). Subject Preference in the Processing of relative Clauses in Chinese. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, and M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 254-260.
12. Chomsky N. Syntactic structures (1957), Mouton, The Hague
13. Chomsky, 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
14. Chomsky N. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins and use (1986), Praeger, New York
15. Clifton C., and Frazier L. Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In: Carlson G.N., and Tanenhaus M.K. (Eds). Linguistics structure in language processing (1989), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
16. Cohen L., and Mehler J. Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition 24 (1996) 94-102
17. Coulson S., King J.W., and Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 13 1 (1998) 21-58
18. Dixon R.M.W. Ergativity, Cambridge studies in linguistics (1994), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 69
19. Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67 (1991) 547-619
20. Ford M. A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22 (1983) 203-218
21. Frauenfelder U., Segui J., and Mehler J. Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19 (1980) 328-337
22. Frazier L. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 5 (1987) 519-559
23. Frazier L., and Flores D'Arcais G. Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language 28 (1989) 331-344
24. Frazier L., and Fodor J.D. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6 (1978) 291-325
25. Friederici A.D., Hahne A., and Saddy D. Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31 (2002) 45-63
26. Friederici A.D., Pfeifer E., and Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research 1 (1993) 183-192
27. Gennari S.P., and MacDonald M.C. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58 (2008) 161-187
28. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68 (1998) 1-76
29. Gibson E. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In: Miyashita Y., Marantz A., and O'Neil W. (Eds). Image, language, brain (2000), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 95-126
30. Gibson E., Hickok G., and Schutze C. Processing empty categories in a parallel parsing framework. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23 (1994) 381-405
31. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., and Johnson M. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 27 (2001) 1411-1423
32. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., and Johnson M. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51 (2004) 97-114
33. Greenhouse S., and Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24 (1959) 95-111
34. Grodner D., and Gibson E. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29 (2005) 261-290
35. Hagoort P., Brown C., and Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8 (1993) 439-483
36. Hagoort P., Brown C., and Osterhout L. The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In: Brown C., and Hagoort P. (Eds). Neurocognition of language (1999), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK 273-316
37. Hale J. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23 (2003) 101-123
38. Holmes V.M., and O'Regan J.K. Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20 (1981) 417-430
39. Hsiao F., and Gibson E. Processing relative clause in Chinese. Cognition 90 (2003) 3-27
40. Ishizuka, T. (2005). Processing relative clauses in Japanese. In Okabe and Nielsen (Eds.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, no.13, Papers in Psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 135-157.
41. Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2006). Processing Japanese relative clauses in context. In Paper presented at The 19th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. New York, NY: CUNY Graduate Center.
42. Just M.A., and Carpenter P.A. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87 4 (1980) 329-354
43. Kaan E., and Swaab T. Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research 17 (2003) 621-635
44. Keenan E.L., and Comrie B. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1977) 63-99
45. Keenan E.L., and Hawkins S. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In: Keenan E. (Ed). Universal grammar: 15 essays (1987), Routledge, London 60-85
46. King J., and Just M.A. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30 (1991) 580-602
47. King J., and Kutas M. Who did what and when? Using word- and cause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7 (1995) 376-395
48. Kluender R., and Kutas M. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5 (1993) 196-214
49. Koopman H., and Sportiche D. The position of subjects. Lingua 85 (1991) 211-259
50. Kuo, K., & Vasishth, S. (submitted for publication). Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the universal subject preference.
51. Kutas M., Van Petten C., and Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1995-2005. In: Traxler M., and Gernsbacher M.A. (Eds). Handbook of psycholinguistics (2006), Elsevier Press, New York 659-724
52. Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, R. (submitted for publication). Cognitive and linguistic determinants of the subject-object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean.
53. Kwon N., Polinsky M., and Kluender R. Subject preference in Korean. In: Baumer D., Montero D., and Scanlon M. (Eds). Proceedings of the 25th west coast conference on formal linguistics (2006), Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA 1-14
54. Laka, I. (1996). A Brief Grammar of Euskara, the Basque Language. University of the Basque Country. Internet document. .
55. Lasnik H., and Uriagereka J. A course on GB syntax. Lectures on binding and empty categories (1988), MIT Press, Cambridge
56. Lin, C.-J., & Bever, T.G. (2006). Chinese is no exception: Universal subject preference of relative clause processing. In Paper presented at the The 19th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. New York, NY: CUNY Graduate Center.
57. Lin & Garnsey (submitted for publication). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin.
58. MacDonald M.C. Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 9 (1994) 157-201
59. MacDonald M.C., and Christiansen M. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1999). Psychological Review 109 (2002) 35-54
60. MacDonald M., Pearlmutter N., and Seidenberg M.S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101 (1994) 676-703
61. MacWhinney B. Starting points. Language 53 (1977) 152-168
62. MacWhinney B. Basic syntactic processes. In: Kuczaj S. (Ed). Syntax and semantics (1). Language acquisition (1982), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
63. MacWhinney B., and Pleh C. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29 (1988) 95-141
64. Mak P., Vonk W., and Schriefers H. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 50-68
65. Mak W.M., Vonk W., and Schriefers H. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 466-490
66. Marantz A. On the nature of grammatical relations (1984), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
67. McRae K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., and Tanenhaus M.K. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 38 (1998) 283-312
68. Mecklinger A., Schriefers H., Steinhauer K., and Friederici D. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23 (1995) 477-494
69. Mitchell D.C. On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In: Carreiras M., and Clifton Jr. C. (Eds). The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and beyond (2004), Psychology Press
70. Mitchell D.C., Cuetos F., Corley M.M.B., and Brysbaert M. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24 (1995) 469-488
71. O'Grady W. Syntactic development (1997), Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL
72. O'Grady W., Miseon L., and Miho C. A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25 (2003) 433-448
73. Osterhout L., and Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31 (1992) 785-804
74. Osterhout L., McLaughlin J., and Bersick M. Event-related brain potentials and human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (1997) 203-209
75. Osterhout L., and Mobley L.A. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 34 (1995) 739-773
76. Oyharçabal, B. (1987). Etude descriptive de constructions complexes en basque: propositions relatives, temporelles, conditionnelles et concessives, Doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris 7, Microfilm: Atelier de publication des thèses de l'Université de Lille 3.
77. Pickering M.J. Processing local and unbounded dependencies: A unified account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23 (1994) 323-352
78. Pickering M., and Barry G. Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes 3 (1991) 229-259
79. Pickering M., and Barry G.D. Dependency categorial grammar and coordination. Linguistics 31 (1993) 855-902
80. Pollock J.Y. Verb movement, UG, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20 (1989) 365-424
81. Sauerland, U., & Gibson, E. (1998). How to predict the relative clause attachment preference. In Paper presented at The 11th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
82. Schriefers H., Friederici A.D., and Kühn K. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language. 34 (1995) 499-520
83. Spivey-Knowlton M., and Sedivy J.C. Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition 55 (1995) 227-267
84. Stowe L. Thematic structures in language processing. In: Carlson G.N., and Tanenhaus M.K. (Eds). Linguistic structure in language processing (1989), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
85. Tabor W., Juliano C., and Tanenhaus M.K. Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language & Cognitive Processes 12 (1997) 211-272
86. Traxler M.J., Morris R.K., and Seely R.E. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 69-70
87. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., and Garnsey S.M. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33 (1994) 285-318
88. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M., and Kello. Verb specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-path. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19 (1993) 528-553
89. Ueno M., and Garnsey S. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language & Cognitive Processes 23 (2008) 646-688
90. Van Berkum J.J.A., Hagoort P., and Brown C. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11 (1999) 657-671
91. Wanner E., and Maratsos M. An ATN approach in comprehension. In: Halle M., Bresnan J., and Miller G. (Eds). Linguistic theory and psychological reality (1978), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 119-161
92. Weckerly J., and Kutas M. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36 5 (1999) 559-570