Processing Chinese relative clauses in context

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 1-2, 2013, Pages 125-155

  Gibson, Edward ^a   Wu, H H Iris ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Relative clause; Sentence processing; Syntactic complexity; Working memory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APHASIA; ARTICLE; CHINESE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; LITERATURE; NORMAL HUMAN; OBJECT EXTRACTED RELATIVE CLAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SUBJECT EXTRACTED RELATIVE CLAUSE; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 84873106996     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.536656     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Aoun, J. and Li, Y. H. A. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of Wh-constructions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Caplan, D. and Futter, C. 1986. Assignment of thematic roles by an agrammatic aphasic patient. Brain and Language, 27: 117-135.
3. Caramazza, A. and Zurif, E. 1976. Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in sentence comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language, 3: 572-582.
4. Chen, B. G., Ning, A. H., Bi, H. Y. and Dunlap, S. 2008. Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129: 61-65.
5. Cheng, L. 1986. De in Mandarin. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 31: 313-399.
6. Cheng, L. 1997. Marking modification in Cantonese and Mandarin (Manuscript). University of California, Irvine and HIL, Leiden.
7. Chomsky, N. and Miller, G. A. 1963. "Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages". In Handbook of mathematical psychology, Edited by: Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. and Galanter, E. Vol. 2, 269-321. New York: Wiley.
8. Daneman, M. and Carpenter, P. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19: 450-466.
9. Den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Den Dikken, M. and Singhapreecha, P. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax, 7: 1-54.
11. Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E. and Rohde, D. 2006. The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 54: 541-553.
12. Fedorenko, E., Woodbury, R., & Gibson, E. 2009. Making the object noun phrase more easily retrievable from memory facilitates the processing of object-extracted relative clauses: Direct evidence for memory-based accounts. Paper presented at the 22nd CUNY conference on sentence processing, University of California, Davis, CA
13. Frazier, L. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
14. Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5: 519-559.
15. Gennari, S. and MacDonald, M. 2008. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58: 161-187.
16. Gennari, S. and MacDonald, M. 2009. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 58: 161-187.
17. Gibson, E. 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown (Doctoral dissertation). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
18. Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68: 1-76.
19. Gibson, E. 2000. "The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity". In Image, language, brain, Edited by: Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A. and O'Neil, W. 95-126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D. and Ko, K. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 313-354.
21. Gibson, E., Fedorenko, E., & Ishizuka, T. 2007, March. The role of discourse-level and semantic predictability in sentence comprehension. Poster presented at the 20th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, UC San Diego.
22. Gordon, P., Hendrick, R. and Johnson, M. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 27: 1411-1423.
23. Gordon, P., Hendrick, R. and Johnson, M. 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51: 97-114.
24. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R. and Levine, W. H. 2002. Memory load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13: 425-430.
25. Grodner, D. and Gibson, E. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29: 261-290.
26. Grodzinsky, Y. 1989. Agrammatic comprehension of relative clauses. Brain and Language, 31: 480-499.
27. Hale, J. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL 2, 159-166.
28. Hale, J. 2003. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32: 101-123.
29. Hawkins, J. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Hickok, G., Zurif, E. and Canseco-Gonzalez, E. 1993. Structural description of agrammatic comprehension. Brain and Language, 45: 371-395.
31. Holmes, V. M. and O'Regan, J. K. 1981. Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20: 417-430.
32. Hsiao, F. 2003. The syntax and processing of relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
33. Hsiao, F. and Gibson, E. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90: 3-27.
34. Huang, C. T. J., Li, A. Y. H. and Li, Y. 2009. The syntax of Chinese, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. 2003, March 27-29. Relative clause extraction complexity in Japanese. Poster presented at the 16th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
36. Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. 2006, March. Processing Japanese relative clauses in context. Paper presented at the 19th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, CUNY, New York.
37. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A. and Woolley, J. D. 1982. Paradigms and processing in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111: 228-238.
38. Keenan, E. L. and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8: 63-99.
39. King, J. and Just, M. A. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 580-602.
40. Kuo, K., & Vasishth, S. 2006. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the universal subject preference (Unpublished manuscript).University of Potsdam.
41. Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. 2006. Subject preference in Korean. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon Proceedings of the 25th West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 1-14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
42. Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106: 1126-1177.
43. Lewis, R. 1996. A theory of grammatical but unacceptable embeddings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25: 93-116.
44. Lewis, R. and Vasishth, S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29: 375-419.
45. Lewis, R., Vasishth, S. and Van Dyke, J. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 447-454.
46. Lin, C.-J. C., & Bever, T. G. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in chinese. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon Proceedings of the 25th West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 254-260). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
47. Lin, Y. B., & Garnsey, S. M. 2007. Plausibility and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. Poster presented at the 20th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California, San Diego, CA, March 2007.
48. MacWhinney, B. 1982. Basic syntactic processes. In S. Kuczaj Language development. Vol. 1: Syntax and semantic. pp. 73-136 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. MacWhinney, B. and Pleh, C. 1988. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition, 29: 95-141.
50. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W. and Schriefers, H. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47: 50-68.
51. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W. and Schriefers, H. 2006. Animacy in relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54: 466-490.
52. McElree, B., Foraker, S. and Dyer, L. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48: 67-91.
53. Mecklinger, K., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K. and Friederici, A. 1995. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions. Memory and Cognition, 23: 477-494.
54. Miyamoto, E., & Nakamura, M. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 342-355). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
55. Nakatani, K. and Gibson, E. 2010. An on-line study of Japanese nesting complexity. Cognitive Science, 34: 94-112.
56. O'Grady, W. 1997. Syntactic development, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
57. Ozeki, H. and Shirai, Y. 2007. Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29: 169-196.
58. Paul, W. 2006. "Zhu Dexi's two classes of adjectives revisited". In Studies in Chinese language and culture: Festschrift in honour of Christoph Harbsmeier on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Edited by: Anderl, C. and Eifring, H. 303-315. Oslo, Norway: Hermes Academic Publishing.
59. Reali, F. and Christiansen, M. H. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57: 1-23.
60. Roland, D., Dick, F. and Elman, J. L. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57: 348-379.
61. Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. and Kühn, K. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34: 499-520.
62. Stabler, E. P. 1994. The finite connectivity of linguistic structures. In C. Clifton Jr, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
63. Su, Y., Lee, S. and Chung, Y. 2007. Asyntactic thematic role assignment by Mandarin aphasics: A test of the Trace-Deletion Hypothesis and the Double Dependency Hypothesis. Brain and Language, 101: 1-18.
64. Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K. and Seely, R. E. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47: 69-90.
65. Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A. and Morris, R. K. 2005. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 204-224.
66. Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 646-688.
67. Van Dyke, J. A. and McElree, B. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55: 157-166.
68. Vasishth, S. and Lewis, R. L. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82(4): 767-794.
69. Wanner, E. and Maratsos, M. 1978. "An ATN approach to comprehension". In Linguistic Theory and psychological reality, Edited by: Halle, M., Bresnan, J. and Miller, G. 119-161. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Warren, T. and Gibson, E. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85: 79-112.