Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean

Object relatives (ORs) have been reported to cause heavier processing loads than subject relatives (SRs) in both pre- and postnominal position (prenominal relatives: Miyamoto & Nakamura 2003, Kwon 2008, Ueno & Garnsey 2008; postnominal relatives: King & Just 1991, King & Kutas 1995, Traxler et al. 2002). In this article, we report the results of two eye-tracking studies of Korean prenominal relative clauses that confirm a processing advantage for subject relatives both with and without supporting context. These results are shown to be compatible with accounts involving the accessibility hierarchy (Keenan & Comrie 1977), phrase-structural complexity (O’Grady 1997), and probabilistic structural disambiguation (Mitchell et al. 1995, Hale 2006), partially compatible with similarity-based interference (Gordon et al. 2001), but incompatible with linear/temporal analyses of filler-gap dependencies (Gibson 1998, 2000, Lewis & Vasishth 2005, Lewis et al. 2006).

[1]  K. Rayner.  The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  Elektrophysiologie komplexer Sätze: Ereigniskorrelierte Potentiale auf der Wort- und Satzebene , 1997 .

[3]  David Caplan,et al.  Effects of Syntactic Structure and Propositional Number on Patterns of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  G. Waters,et al.  Activation of Broca's area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation , 2000, Human brain mapping.

[5]  Hanjung Lee,et al.  Linguistic complexity and information structure in Korean: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading , 2007, Cognition.

[6]  Chien-Jer Charles Lin,et al.  GRAMMAR AND PARSING: A TYPOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF RELATIVE-CLAUSE PROCESSING , 2006 .

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

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

[9]  S. Potter,et al.  Universals of Language , 1966 .

[10]  小泉 保,et al.  COMRIE,Bernard:Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,Syntax and Morphology,1989 , 1983 .

[11]  K. Sakuma.  The structure of the Japanese language , 1951 .

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

[13]  H. M. Müller,et al.  Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. , 1997, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[14]  C. Doughty.  Second Language Instruction Does Make a Difference , 1991, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[15]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing. , 1978, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  David Caplan,et al.  Assignment of thematic roles to nouns in sentence comprehension by an agrammatic patient , 1986, Brain and Language.

[17]  G. Waters,et al.  PET Studies of Syntactic Processing with Auditory Sentence Presentation , 1999, NeuroImage.

[18]  Naama Friedmann,et al.  The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: a study of SLI and normal development , 2004, Journal of Child Language.

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

[20]  Edson T Miyamoto,et al.  Case Markers as Clause Boundary Inducers in Japanese , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[21]  Robert Hamilton,et al.  Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language , 1994 .

[22]  L Konieczny,et al.  Locality and Parsing Complexity , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

[24]  David Caplan,et al.  Determinants of Bold Signal Correlates of Processing Object-Extracted Relative Clauses , 2006, Cortex.

[25]  Young-Se Kang,et al.  Korean syntax and universal grammer , 1988 .

[26]  A. Marantz,et al.  Image, language, brain : papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium , 2000 .

[27]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Processing relative clauses in Chinese , 2003, Cognition.

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

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

[30]  Y. Matsumoto,et al.  Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Ap- , 2009 .

[31]  Susan Gas.  LANGUAGE TRANSFER AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS , 1979 .

[32]  Julie A. Van Dyke,et al.  Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair : A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities , 2002 .

[33]  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.

[34]  Ho-min Sohn,et al.  Theme-Prominence in Korean , 1980 .

[35]  Patrick Sturt,et al.  Monotonic Syntactic Processing : A Cross-linguistic Study of Attachment and Reanalysis , 1996 .

[36]  M. Just,et al.  Brain Activation Modulated by Sentence Comprehension , 1996, Science.

[37]  Takahiro Soshi,et al.  A Topographical Study on the Event-related Potential Correlates of Scrambled Word Order in Japanese Complex Sentences , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[38]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production , 2000, Cognition.

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

[40]  David Caplan,et al.  Localization of Syntactic Comprehension by Positron Emission Tomography , 1998, NeuroImage.

[41]  Simon P. Liversedge,et al.  Chapter 3 – Eye Movements and Measures of Reading Time , 1998 .

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

[43]  Jongim Han,et al.  Syntactic Movement Analysis of Korean Relativization , 1992 .

[44]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements , 1990, On Language.

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

[46]  Jiwon Yun,et al.  Subject-Object Asymmetries in Korean Sentence Comprehension , 2010 .

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

[48]  Avery D. Andrews,et al.  Relative Clauses , 2019 .

[49]  J. Hawkins.  Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[50]  M. Tomasello,et al.  A New Look at the Acquisition of Relative Clauses , 2005 .

[51]  Fred R. Eckman,et al.  On the Generalization of Relative Clause Instruction in the Acquisition of English as a Second Language1 , 1988 .

[52]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[53]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  Rethinking the Typology of Relative Clauses , 1998 .

[54]  M. Pickering,et al.  The Representation of Verbs: Evidence from Syntactic Priming in Language Production , 1998 .

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

[56]  Frank Keller,et al.  A Computational Model of Prediction in Human Parsing: Unifying Locality and Surprisal Effects , 2009 .

[57]  Edson T. Miyamoto,et al.  The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics: Processing alternative word orders in Japanese , 2006 .

[58]  Min-Joo Kim,et al.  E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean , 2009 .

[59]  S. Crain,et al.  Syntactic Processing in Agrammatic Aphasia by Speakers of a Slavic Language , 1995, Brain and Language.

[60]  Weijia Ni,et al.  Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study , 2004, NeuroImage.

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

[62]  J. Gee,et al.  Neural basis for sentence comprehension: Grammatical and short‐term memory components , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[63]  B. McElree,et al.  Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. , 2006, Journal of memory and language.

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

[65]  N. Alpert,et al.  Localization of Syntactic Comprehension by Positron Emission Tomography , 1996, Brain and Language.

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

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

[68]  Keiko Uehara,et al.  Judgments of Processing Load in Japanese: The Effect of NP-ga Sequences , 1997 .

[69]  Min-Joo Kim,et al.  Formal linking in Internally Headed Relatives , 2007 .

[70]  G. Waters,et al.  Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event‐related fMRI study of relative clauses , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[71]  C. Huang.  On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns , 1984 .

[72]  Richard L. Lewis.  Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[73]  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 .

[74]  David Cohen,et al.  Explaining linguistic phenomena , 1974 .

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

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

[77]  Jong-Bok Kim,et al.  A Head-Driven and Constraint-Based Analysis of Korean Relative Clause Constructions , 1998 .

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

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

[80]  N. A. Mccawley,et al.  The structure of the Japanese language , 1973 .

[81]  K. Hakuta,et al.  Children's comprehension of relative clauses , 1979, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

[83]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

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

[85]  H. Goodluck,et al.  Papers in the structure and development of child language , 1978 .

[86]  M. Kinsbourne,et al.  Preschool children's sentence comprehension: strategies with respect to word order , 1980, Journal of Child Language.

[87]  Luk Pui Ki.  Children's Comprehension of Relative Clauses , 2007 .

[88]  Chung-hye Han,et al.  Are There Double Relative Clauses in Korean? , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

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

[90]  A. Andrews,et al.  Relative Clauses , 2019, The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek.

[91]  MINEHARU NAKAYAMA.  Difficulty of Processing Japanese and Korean Center-embedding Constructions , 2005 .

[92]  Nayoung Kwon,et al.  Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean : evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments , 2008 .

[93]  Yoshiko Matsumoto.  Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese , 1997 .

[94]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[95]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[96]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  Subject Preference in the Processingof Relative Clauses in Chinese , 2006 .

[97]  Comrie Bernard.  Language Universals and Linguistic Typology , 1982 .

[98]  Robert Kluender,et al.  Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling , 2003, Brain and Language.

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

[100]  Yosef Grodzinsky,et al.  Agrammatic comprehension of relative clauses , 1989, Brain and Language.

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

[102]  Hiroko Yamashita,et al.  The Effects of Word-Order and Case Marking Information on the Processing of Japanese , 1997 .

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

[104]  Sun-Hee Lee,et al.  A lexical analysis of select unbounded dependency constructions in Korean , 2004 .

[105]  J. K. Bock.  Syntactic persistence in language production , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[106]  Young-Joo Kim,et al.  Subject/Object Drop in the Acquisition of Korean: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison , 2000 .

[107]  Edith A. Moravcsik,et al.  Universals of human language , 1978 .

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

[109]  Universal grammar : 15 essays , 1987 .

[110]  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.

[111]  Barbara A. Fox.  The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Reinterpreted: Subject Primacy or the Absolutive Hypothesis? , 1987 .

[112]  David Caplan,et al.  Syntactic and Thematic Constraint Effects on Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent Signal Correlates of Comprehension of Relative Clauses , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[113]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Working Memory in Sentence Comprehension: Processing Hindi Center Embeddings , 2003 .

[114]  Sang Doh Park,et al.  Direct Movement Passives in Korean and Japanese , 2005 .

[115]  M. Pickering,et al.  Eye guidance in reading and scene perception , 1998 .

[116]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead , 2007 .

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

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

[119]  E. Keenan,et al.  Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar , 2008 .

[120]  W. O'grady,et al.  A SUBJECT-OBJECT ASYMMETRY IN THE ACQUISITION OF RELATIVE CLAUSES IN KOREAN AS A SECOND LANGUAGE , 2003, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[121]  Charles Chien-Jer Lin,et al.  The Processing Foundation of Head-Final Relative Clauses , 2008 .

[122]  Randall Hendrick,et al.  Relativization, Ergativity, and Corpus Frequency , 2005, Linguistic Inquiry.

[123]  Jon Andoni Duñabeitia,et al.  Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque , 2010, Cognition.