Processing Relative Clauses in Supportive Contexts

Results from two self-paced reading experiments in English are reported in which subject- and object-extracted relative clauses (SRCs and ORCs, respectively) were presented in contexts that support both types of relative clauses (RCs). Object-extracted versions were read more slowly than subject-extracted versions across both experiments. These results are not consistent with a decay-based working memory account of dependency formation where the amount of decay is a function of the number of new discourse referents that intervene between the dependents (Gibson, 1998; Warren & Gibson, 2002). Rather, these results support interference-based accounts and decay-based accounts where the amount of decay depends on the number of words or on the type of noun phrases that intervene between the dependents. In Experiment 2, presentation in supportive contexts was directly contrasted with presentation in null contexts. Whereas in the null context the extraction effect was only observed during the RC region, in a supportive context the extraction effect was numerically larger and persisted into the following region, thus showing that extraction effects are enhanced in supportive contexts. A sentence completion study demonstrated that the rate of SRCs versus ORCs was similar across null and supportive contexts (with most completions being subject-extractions), ruling out the possibility that an enhanced extraction effect in supportive contexts is due to ORCs being less expected in such contexts. However, the content of the RCs differed between contexts in the completions, such that the RCs produced in supportive contexts were more constrained, reflecting the lexical and semantic content of the preceding context. This effect, which we discuss in terms of expectations/lexico-syntactic priming, suggests that the enhancement of the extraction effect in supportive contexts is due to the facilitation of the subject-extracted condition.

[1]  K. Rayner,et al.  Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese , 2008 .

[4]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Natural Language Parsing , 2005 .

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

[6]  P. D. Eimas,et al.  Speech, language, and communication , 1997 .

[7]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Carlota Smith.  Modes of Discourse: Referring expressions in discourse , 2003 .

[9]  Douglas Roland,et al.  Frequency of Basic English Grammatical Structures: A Corpus Analysis. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[10]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993, The Oxford Handbook of Reference.

[11]  John Hale,et al.  A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a Psycholinguistic Model , 2001, NAACL.

[12]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On not being led up the garden path : The use of context by the psychological syntax processor , 1985 .

[13]  D. Caplan,et al.  Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[14]  Holly Branigan,et al.  Syntactic Priming , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[15]  Michiko Nakamura,et al.  Subject/Object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese , 2003 .

[16]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Modeling human performance in statistical word segmentation , 2010, Cognition.

[17]  Clare Beaumont,et al.  Reading Relative Clauses , 1982 .

[18]  E. Gibson.  The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

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

[20]  Mira Ariel.  Referring and accessibility , 1988, Journal of Linguistics.

[21]  P. Holcomb.  Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[22]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence , 2007 .

[23]  Randall Hendrick,et al.  Memory-Load Interference in Syntactic Processing , 2002, Psychological science.

[24]  Nayoung Kwon,et al.  Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean , 2010 .

[25]  Mira Ariel.  Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[26]  N. Pearlmutter,et al.  Constraints on sentence comprehension , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The use of context by the psychological parser , 1981 .

[28]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[29]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[30]  Silvia P. Gennari,et al.  Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[31]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

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

[33]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities , 2003 .

[34]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research , 2013 .

[35]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[36]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  Chapter 7 – Sentence Comprehension , 1995 .

[37]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Argument-Head Distance and Processing Complexity: Explaining both Locality and Antilocality Effects , 2006 .

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

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

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

[41]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush , 2006 .

[42]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[43]  R. Levy.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[44]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Processing Chinese relative clauses in context , 2013 .

[45]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Beyond Transitional Probabilities: Human Learners Impose a Parsimony Bias in Statistical Word Segmentation , 2010 .

[46]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

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

[49]  G. Miller,et al.  Linguistic theory and psychological reality , 1982 .

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

[51]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[52]  P. Gordon,et al.  Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  Chris Callison-Burch,et al.  Creating Speech and Language Data With Amazon’s Mechanical Turk , 2010, Mturk@HLT-NAACL.

[54]  P. Gordon,et al.  Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity , 2004 .

[55]  M. Pickering,et al.  Syntactic priming in language production , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[57]  M. Kutas,et al.  Interactions between sentence context and word frequencyinevent-related brainpotentials , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[58]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[59]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The Interaction of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Statistics in the Resolution of Syntactic Category Ambiguity. , 2006 .

[60]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .

[61]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in reading , 1987 .

[62]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Reading relative clauses in English , 2005 .

[63]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[64]  Stephani Foraker,et al.  Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension , 2003 .

[65]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension : Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources , 2006 .

[66]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue , 2007, Cognition.

[67]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

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

[69]  Adrian Staub,et al.  Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses , 2010, Cognition.

[70]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension , 1982 .

[71]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension , 2005, Cognition.

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

[73]  L. Osterhout,et al.  The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2005 .