Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses.

This article examined whether semantic indeterminacy plays a role in comprehension of complex structures such as object relative clauses. Study 1 used a gated sentence completion task to assess which alternative interpretations are dominant as the relative clause unfolds; Study 2 compared reading times in object relative clauses containing different animacy configurations to unambiguous passive controls; and Study 3 related completion data and reading data. The results showed that comprehension difficulty was modulated by animacy configuration and voice (active vs. passive). These differences were well correlated with the availability of alternative interpretations as the relative clause unfolds, as revealed by the completion data. In contrast to approaches arguing that comprehension difficulty stems from syntactic complexity, these results suggest that semantic indeterminacy is a major source of comprehension difficulty in object relative clauses. Results are consistent with constraint-based approaches to ambiguity resolution and bring new insights into previously identified sources of difficulty.

[1]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The use of "that" in the Production and Comprehension of Object Relative Clauses , 2003 .

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

[3]  Thomas Wasow,et al.  Processing as a Source of Accessibility Effects on Variation , 2005 .

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

[5]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Impairments of sentence comprehension , 1994 .

[6]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Dynamical models of sentence processing , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

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

[8]  J. V. Van Dyke Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  David R. Dowty Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[10]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  Tense, Temporal Context, and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. , 1991 .

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

[12]  Mark Aronoff,et al.  Contemporary linguistics: An introduction , 1989 .

[13]  G. Waters,et al.  Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[14]  J. A. Dyke Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. , 2007 .

[15]  益子 真由美 Argument Structure , 1993, The Lexicon.

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

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

[18]  Brian MacWhinney,et al.  The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian , 1988, Cognition.

[19]  G. Waters,et al.  Working memory and written sentence comprehension , 1987 .

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

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

[22]  K. Bock,et al.  From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. , 1992 .

[23]  John Hale,et al.  Uncertainty About the Rest of the Sentence , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  G. Waters,et al.  The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992) , 1996, Psychological review.

[25]  K. Bock,et al.  From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. , 1992, Psychological review.

[26]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. , 1989 .

[27]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser , 1989 .

[28]  K. McRae,et al.  Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts , 2001 .

[29]  G. Waters,et al.  Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[30]  Linda Cupples,et al.  The structural characteristics and on-line comprehension of experiencer-verb sentences , 2002 .

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

[32]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

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

[34]  C. Clifton,et al.  Comprehending Sentences with Long-Distance Dependencies , 1989 .

[35]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints , 1995, Cognition.

[36]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  Dan Jurafsky,et al.  Probabilistic Modeling in Psycholinguistics: Linguistic Comprehension and Production , 2006 .

[38]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). , 2002, Psychological review.

[39]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb Argument Structure in Parsing and Interpretation: Evidence from wh-Questions , 1995 .

[40]  K Christianson,et al.  Misinterpretations of Garden-Path Sentences: Implications for Models of Sentence Processing and Reanalysis , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[41]  Kate Stewart,et al.  Starting points , 2020, SIGP.

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

[43]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

[46]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Syntactic Complexity in Ambiguity Resolution , 2002 .

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

[48]  B. Levin,et al.  The formation of adjectival passives , 1985 .

[49]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control , 1989 .

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

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

[52]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies:An Eye-Tracking Study , 1996 .

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

[54]  M. MacDonald,et al.  Individual Differences and Probabilistic Constraints in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1995 .

[55]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics , 1990 .

[56]  C. Phillips,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

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

[58]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Reassessing Working Memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996) , 2002 .

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

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

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

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

[63]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

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

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

[66]  David R. Dowty On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘Thematic Role’ , 1989 .

[67]  M. MacDonald The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity , 1993 .

[68]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Relations, Objects, and the Composition of Analogies , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[69]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

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

[71]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses , 2009, Cognition.

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

[73]  F. Ferreira Choice of Passive Voice is Affected by Verb Type and Animacy , 1994 .

[74]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993 .

[75]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  STARTING POINTS , 1977 .

[76]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[77]  Julie E. Boland The Relationship Between Syntactic and Semantic Processes in Sentence Comprehension. , 1997 .

[78]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Linguistic Structure in Language Processing , 1988 .

[79]  Liliane Haegeman,et al.  Introduction to Government and Binding Theory , 1991 .

[80]  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 .

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

[82]  John Whitman,et al.  --; CHARLES CLIFTON; and JANET RANDALL. 1983. Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension. Cognition 13.187-222. , and JANET FODOR. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition , 1997 .

[83]  A. Belletti,et al.  Psych-verbs and θ-theory , 1988 .

[84]  Brian MacWhinney,et al.  The emergence of language. , 1999 .

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

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

[87]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses , 2005 .

[88]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses , 2007 .