The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian

Abstract A rich variety of factors have been proposed as possible determinants of differences in the ease of processing of relative clauses. These determinants include the grammatical role of the head, the shape of surface order configurations the occurence of interruptions of the main clause, and the presence or absence of morphological cues. The strict SVO word order of English makes it so that subject-modifying relatives necessarily interrupt the main clause, thus confounding the effects of role and interruption determinants. Hungarian, with its variable word order, allows us to achieve a somewhat better understanding of the separate effects of roles, configurations, interruptions, and morphological cues. A study using 144 different restrictive relative clause patterns in Hungarian provided evidence for the importance of three determinants of relative clause processing. First, the importance of perspective maintenance was indicated by the fact that SS sentences were the easiest to process and that SO were the most difficult. Second, the extreme difficulty subjects had in processing NNV sentences with a relative clause modifying the second noun indicated the importance of limits on fragment construction of chunks in a bottom-up parsing process. The use of antecedent tagging to mark extraposed relatives in SOV languages with variable order such as Hungarian and Georgian also indicated the importance of limits on fragment construction. Third, the conflict between focusing in the relative clause and focusing in the main clause indicated the importance of focus maintenance. A variety of other proposed determinants were found to be of little importance in accounting for the processing of relative clauses in Hungarian.

[1]  V. Cook.  Strategies in the Comprehension of Relative Clauses , 1975, Language and speech.

[2]  Amy Sheldon.  ‘The acquisition of relative clauses in French and English: Implications for language learning universals , 1976 .

[3]  David F. Marks,et al.  Relative judgment: A phenomenon and a theory , 1972 .

[4]  Amy Sheldon.  On strategies for processing relative clauses: A comparison of children and adults , 1977 .

[5]  Hannelore Grimm,et al.  Zur Entwicklung sprachlicher Strukturformen bei Kindern : Forschungsbericht zur Sprachentwicklung I, empir. Untersuchungen z. Erwerb u.z. Erfassung sprachl. Wahrnehmungs- u. Produktionsstrategien bei Drei- bis Achtjährigen , 1975 .

[6]  Jacques Mehler,et al.  Monitoring around the relative clause , 1980 .

[7]  Kenji Hakuta,et al.  Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese , 1981, Cognition.

[8]  V. M. Holmes.  Order of Main and Subordinate Clauses in Sentence Perception. , 1973 .

[9]  Victor H. Yngve,et al.  A model and an hypothesis for language structure , 1960 .

[10]  Marily Ford,et al.  A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences , 1983 .

[11]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[12]  D. Slobin.  Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar , 1973 .

[13]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Randolph G. Bias,et al.  Sentence Comprehension Processes in the Pre-Schooler , 1978 .

[15]  M. Fluck,et al.  Comprehension of Relative Clauses By Children Aged Five To Nine Years , 1978, Language and speech.

[16]  George A. Miller,et al.  Free Recall of Self-Embedded English Sentences , 1964, Inf. Control..

[17]  R Baird,et al.  Recall of grammatical relations within clause-containing sentences , 1974, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  A. Duranti,et al.  Relative clause structure, relative clause perception, and the change from SOV to SVO , 1979, Cognition.

[19]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[20]  M. Fluck.  Young Children's Comprehension of Complex Sentences , 1977, Language and speech.

[21]  J. Kimball.  Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

[22]  Patricia M. Clancy,et al.  Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses: Universal principles and language-specific realizations , 1986, Cognition.

[23]  H. Brown.  Children's comprehension of relativized English sentences. , 1971 .

[24]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar , 1976 .

[25]  Walter S. Stolz,et al.  A study of the ability to decode grammatically novel sentences , 1967 .

[26]  V. M. Holmes,et al.  Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. , 1981 .

[27]  M Lahey.  Use of prosody and syntactic markers in children's comprehension of spoken sentences. , 1974, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  Arthur L. Blumenthal,et al.  Observations with self-embedded sentences , 1966 .

[29]  A. Sheldon.  The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English , 1973 .

[30]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.

[31]  M. Kail.  Etude génétique de la reproduction de phrases relatives: I. Reproduction immédiate , 1975 .

[32]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Finitary models of language users , 1963 .

[33]  Brian MacWhinney,et al.  Basic Syntactic Processes , 1982 .

[34]  Melissa Bowerman,et al.  The Acquisition of Complex Sentences: Conclusion , 2004 .

[35]  J. S. Evans,et al.  Understanding sentences with relative clauses , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[36]  H E Wanner,et al.  An ATN approach to comprehension , 1978 .

[37]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian , 1984 .

[38]  Charles N. Li,et al.  Subject and topic , 1979 .