Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush

For several languages, a preference for subject relative clauses over object relative clauses has been reported. However, Mak, Vonk, and Schriefers (2002) showed that there is no such preference for relative clauses with an animate subject and an inanimate object. A Dutch object relative clause as .. .de rots, die de wandelaars beklommen hebben ... (‘the rock, that the hikers climbed’) did not show longer reading times than its subject relative clause counterpart .. .de wandelaars, die de rots beklommen hebben ... (‘the hikers, who climbed the rock’). In the present paper, we explore the factors that might contribute to this modulation of the usual preference for subject relative clauses. Experiment 1 shows that the animacy of the antecedent per se is not the decisive factor. On the contrary, in relative clauses with an inanimate antecedent and an inanimate relative-clause-internal noun phrase, the usual preference for subject relative clauses is found. In Experiments 2 and 3, subject and object relative clauses were contrasted in which either the subject or the object was inanimate. The results are interpreted in a framework in which the choice for an analysis of the relative clause is based on the interplay of animacy with topichood and verb semantics. This framework accounts for the commonly reported preference for subject relative clauses over object relative clauses as well as for the pattern of data found in the present experiments.

[1]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  The Processing of Locally Ambiguous Relative Clauses in German , 1995 .

[2]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[3]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[4]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records , 1995 .

[5]  Robert D. van Valin,et al.  The case for “effector”: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited , 1996 .

[6]  M. Just,et al.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory , 1991 .

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

[8]  Sandra A. Thompson,et al.  A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation. , 1990 .

[9]  B. Devriendt,et al.  Complex structures : a functionalist perspective , 1996 .

[10]  Roger P. G. van Gompel,et al.  Reanalysis in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Current Constraint-Based and Two-Stage Models , 2001 .

[11]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited , 2003 .

[12]  M. Masson Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[13]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  The mind's eye : cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research , 2003 .

[14]  Wayne S. Murray Commentary on Section 4 – Sentence Processing: Issues and Measures , 2000 .

[15]  W. Vonk,et al.  On the treatment of saccades and regressions in eye movement measures of reading time , 2003 .

[16]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

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

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

[19]  M. Pickering,et al.  Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. , 2005 .

[20]  Lars Konieczny,et al.  Human sentence processing: a semantics-oriented parsing approach , 1996 .

[21]  M. Pickering,et al.  Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1998 .

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

[23]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[24]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[25]  Robin L. Hill,et al.  Reading as a Perceptual Process , 2000 .

[26]  Van Valin,et al.  Toward a functionalist account of so-called ‘extraction constraints’ , 1995 .

[27]  J. Raaijmakers,et al.  How to deal with "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. , 1999 .

[28]  Tessa C. Warren,et al.  The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity , 2002, Cognition.

[29]  A D Friederici,et al.  Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[30]  P. Gordon,et al.  Memory interference during language processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements , 2002 .

[32]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Lexical Processing during Saccadic Eye Movements , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  E. Kaan Effects of NP Type on the Resolution of Word-Order Ambiguities , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[34]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Syntactic processing: Evidence from dutch , 1987 .

[35]  W. M. Mak,et al.  Processing relative clauses: effects of pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic variables , 2001 .

[36]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Discourse structure and relative clause processing , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[37]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Modifier Attachment: Relative Clauses and Coordinations , 2000 .

[38]  M. Kutas,et al.  Who Did What and When? Using Word- and Clause-Level ERPs to Monitor Working Memory Usage in Reading , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  M. Kutas,et al.  An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[40]  Lars Konieczny,et al.  The Role of Lexical Heads in Parsing: Evidence from German , 1997 .

[41]  Knud Lambrecht,et al.  There Was a Farmer Had a Dog: Syntactic Amalgams Revisited , 1988 .

[42]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  The Influence of Animacy on Relative Clause Processing , 2002 .