Relative Clause Effects at the Matrix Verb Depend on Type of Intervening Material

被引:2
|
作者
Lowder, Matthew W. [1 ]
Gordon, Peter C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Richmond, Dept Psychol, Richmond, VA 23173 USA
[2] Univ North Carolina Chapel Hill, Dept Psychol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
关键词
Sentence processing; Eye movements; Relative clauses; Prepositional phrases; WORKING-MEMORY; LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION; EYE-TRACKING; SENTENCE; INTERFERENCE; COMPLEXITY; FREQUENCY; PATTERNS; ANIMACY;
D O I
10.1111/cogs.13039
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Although a large literature demonstrates that object-extracted relative clauses (ORCs) are harder to process than subject-extracted relative clauses (SRCs), there is less agreement regarding where during processing this difficulty emerges, as well as how best to explain these effects. An eye-tracking study by Staub, Dillon, and Clifton (2017) demonstrated that readers experience more processing difficulty at the matrix verb for ORCs than for SRCs when the matrix verb immediately follows the relative clause (RC), but the difficulty is eliminated if a prepositional phrase (PP) intervenes. A careful examination of Staub et al.'s materials reveals that the types of PPs used in the experiment were a mixture of locative and temporal PPs. This is important in that locative PPs can modify either a noun phrase or a verb phrase (VP), whereas temporal PPs typically modify VPs, resulting in systematic differences in PP attachment across ORCs versus SRCs. In the current eye-tracking experiment, we systematically manipulated RC type and PP type in the same sentences used by Staub et al. The manipulation of PP type resulted in a crossover pattern at the matrix verb such that there was a trend for reading times to be longer for ORCs than SRCs when the PP was locative, but reading times were longer for SRCs than ORCs when the PP was temporal. These results provide important information regarding the locus of RC-processing effects and highlight the importance of carefully considering how intervening material might unintentionally alter the structure or the meaning of a sentence.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] The effects of restrictiveness on relative clause processing in Farsi
    Seifi, Pouran
    Loerts, Hanneke
    Mak, Pim
    ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 2024, 247
  • [2] The Matrix Verb as a Source of Comprehension Difficulty in Object Relative Sentences
    Staub, Adrian
    Dillon, Brian
    Clifton, Charles, Jr.
    COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2017, 41 : 1353 - 1376
  • [3] Animacy effects in Chinese relative clause processing
    Wu, Fuyun
    Kaiser, Elsi
    Andersen, Elaine
    LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 2012, 27 (10): : 1489 - 1524
  • [4] Production predicts comprehension: Animacy effects in Mandarin relative clause processing
    Hsiao, Yaling
    MacDonald, Maryellen C.
    JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2016, 89 : 87 - 109
  • [5] Verb Bias in Mandarin Relative Clause Processing
    Lin, Yowyu
    Garnsey, Susan
    CONCENTRIC-STUDIES IN LINGUISTICS, 2011, 37 (01) : 73 - 91
  • [6] Exploring the effects of animacy and verb type on the processing asymmetry between SRC and ORC among Chinese EFL learners
    Sun, Li
    Fan, Lin
    Xu, Mengling
    HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS, 2023, 10 (01):
  • [7] Discussing High Attachment Preference in Spanish: Position Effects of the Relative Clause
    Stetie, Noelia Ayelen
    Zunino, Gabriela Mariel
    REVISTA SIGNOS, 2023, 56 (112): : 351 - 373
  • [8] Testing the online reading effects of emotionality on relative clause attachment
    Garcia-Orza, Javier
    Manuel Gavilan, Jose
    Fraga, Isabel
    Ferre, Pilar
    COGNITIVE PROCESSING, 2017, 18 (04) : 543 - 553
  • [9] A reading-time study of the main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution by English learners in Taiwan
    Yang, Pi-Lan
    Shih, Su-Chin
    APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 2013, 34 (06) : 1109 - 1133
  • [10] PROCESSING OF THE REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE VERSUS MAIN VERB AMBIGUITY IN L2 LEARNERS AT DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
    Rah, Anne
    Adone, Dany
    STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, 2010, 32 (01) : 79 - 109