The effects of restrictiveness on relative clause processing in Farsi

被引:0
作者
Seifi, Pouran [1 ,3 ]
Loerts, Hanneke [1 ]
Mak, Pim [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Fac Arts, Appl Linguist, NL-9712 EK Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Utrecht, Trans 10, NL-3512 JK Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] UiT Arctic Univ Norway, Dept Language & Culture, SVHUM A2011 UiT Campus Tromso, N-9019 Tromso, Norway
关键词
Farsi relative clauses; Restrictive; Non-restrictive; Sentence processing; First language; Eye-movements; Frequency distribution; WORKING-MEMORY; EYE-TRACKING; COMPREHENSION; SUBJECT; INTERFERENCE; DIFFICULTY; ANIMACY; ERP;
D O I
10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104299
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
With an eye-tracking experiment, we investigated the processing of Farsi object and subject relative clauses. Since restrictive relative clauses in Farsi are marked and distinguished clearly by the enclitic particle (sic) /-i/ attached to the head noun, we also compared the processing of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Seifi (2021) conducted a corpus analysis that showed that object relative clauses are in general less frequent than subject relative clauses. However, while non-restrictive relative clauses are predominantly subject relative clauses, restrictive relative clauses are more balanced in the corpus. In an eye-tracking experiment, Farsi speakers processed restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses differently. In non-restrictive relative clauses, the effect is similar to that found in most other languages: a clear processing delay in object relative clauses, compared to subject relative clauses. This effect was visible both at the relative clause verb and at the end of the matrix sentence. In restrictive relative clauses, on the other hand, the picture is different: Just as for the non-restrictive relative clauses object relative clauses had long reading times in the relative clause, but at the end of the sentence a reverse effect was found. Thus, the processing data reflected the pattern found in the corpus. We discuss these findings in terms of the distinct functions of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
Abdollahnejad E, 2017, LINGUIST INVESTIG, V40, P135, DOI 10.1075/li.00001.abd
[2]  
Aghaei B., 2006, doctoral dissertation
[3]  
Alqurashi A, 2018, Journal of Sciedupress, V7, P54, DOI [10.5430/elr.v7n2p54, DOI 10.5430/ELR.V7N2P54]
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Persian Grammar, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110800425
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2003, 16 ANN CUNY C HUM SE
[6]   The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism [J].
Aydin, Ozgur .
APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 2007, 28 (02) :295-315
[7]   Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 [J].
Bates, Douglas ;
Maechler, Martin ;
Bolker, Benjamin M. ;
Walker, Steven C. .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL SOFTWARE, 2015, 67 (01) :1-48
[8]   The processing of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish: An eye-tracking study [J].
Betancort, Moises ;
Carreiras, Manuel ;
Sturt, Patrick .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 62 (10) :1915-1929
[9]   Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque [J].
Carreiras, Manuel ;
Andoni Dunabeitia, Jon ;
Vergara, Marta ;
de la Cruz-Pavia, Irene ;
Laka, Itziar .
COGNITION, 2010, 115 (01) :79-92
[10]   Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses [J].
Chen, Baoguo ;
Ning, Aihua ;
Bi, Hongyan ;
Dunlap, Susan .
ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 2008, 129 (01) :61-65