Syntactic Comprehension of Relative Clauses and Center Embedding Using Pseudowords

Relative clause (RC) formation and center embedding (CE) are two primary syntactic operations fundamental for creating and understanding complex sentences. Ample evidence from previous cross-linguistic studies has revealed several similarities and differences between RC and CE. However, it is not easy to investigate the effect of pure syntactic constraints for RC and CE without the interference of semantic and pragmatic interactions. Here, we show how readers process CE and RC using a self-paced reading task in Korean. More interestingly, we adopted a novel self-paced pseudoword reading task to exploit syntactic operations of the RC and CE, eliminating the semantic and pragmatic interference in sentence comprehension. Our results showed that the main effects of RC and CE conform to previous studies. Furthermore, we found a facilitation effect of sentence comprehension when we combined an RC and CE in a complex sentence. Our study provides a valuable insight into how the purely syntactic processing of RC and CE assists comprehension of complex sentences.

[1]  J. Bresnan,et al.  Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English , 2010 .

[2]  E. Bates.  Processing Complex Sentences: A Cross-linguistic Study , 1999 .

[3]  National Chung Cheng.  Gapless Relative Clauses as Clausal Licensors of Relational Nouns * , 2008 .

[4]  G. Fanselow,et al.  On the Informativity of Different Measures of Linguistic Acceptability , 2011 .

[5]  Frank Keller,et al.  The Entropy Rate Principle as a Predictor of Processing Effort: An Evaluation against Eye-tracking Data , 2004, EMNLP.

[6]  D. C. Mitchell,et al.  An Evaluation of Subject-Paced Reading Tasks and Other Methods for Investigating Immediate Processes in Reading 1 , 2018 .

[7]  J. Woolley,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

[9]  Jae-Hak Yoon.  Different semantics for different syntax: relative clauses in Korean , 1993 .

[10]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[11]  Are There Relative Clauses in Korean?: A Participle Clause Analysis , 2012 .

[12]  Hee-Rahk Chae,et al.  Tense Markers and -ko Constructions in Korean , 2006, PACLIC.

[13]  John Hale,et al.  The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[14]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  Lexical surprisal as a general predictor of reading time , 2012, EACL.

[15]  S. E. Martin.  A reference grammar of Korean : a complete guide to the grammar and history of the Korean language , 1992 .

[16]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

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

[18]  R. Loock.  'Are you a good which or a bad which ?' The relative pronoun as a plain connective , 2007 .

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

[20]  Frank Keller,et al.  Expectation and Locality Effects in German Verb-final Structures. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[21]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Locality in German , 2011, Dialogue Discourse.

[22]  Narayanan Srinivasan,et al.  Strong Expectations Cancel Locality Effects: Evidence from Hindi , 2014, PloS one.

[23]  R. Saxe,et al.  A Noisy-Channel Account of Crosslinguistic Word-Order Variation , 2013, Psychological science.

[24]  Jae-Il Yeom.  Gapless Adnominal Clauses in Korean and their Interpretations , 2015 .

[25]  M. Kutas,et al.  Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data , 2013 .

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

[27]  Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai,et al.  On the Absence of Island Effects , 1997 .

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

[29]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models , 2017 .

[30]  Ho-min Sohn,et al.  The Korean language , 1999 .

[31]  Gina R Kuperberg,et al.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? , 2016, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[32]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[33]  D. Bates,et al.  Balancing Type I Error and Power in Linear Mixed Models , 2015, 1511.01864.

[34]  Jonathan W. Peirce,et al.  PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

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

[36]  Keiko Murasugi,et al.  Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition , 1991 .

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

[38]  J. Zwart.  The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[39]  Evelina Fedorenko,et al.  The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses , 2012, Journal of memory and language.

[40]  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 .

[41]  Sally Andrews,et al.  To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[42]  Pablo Gamallo Otero,et al.  The Meaning of Syntactic Dependencies , 2013 .

[43]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis , 2017 .

[44]  Tal Linzen,et al.  Uncertainty and Expectation in Sentence Processing: Evidence From Subcategorization Distributions , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  Andrés Montoyo,et al.  Advances on natural language processing , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

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

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

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

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

[50]  I. Sag.  English relative clause constructions , 1997, Journal of Linguistics.

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

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

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

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

[55]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[56]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Subject preference in Korean , 2006 .

[57]  Katsuo Tamaoka,et al.  Disambiguation and Integration in Korean Relative Clause Processing , 2017, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[58]  Fred Karlsson,et al.  Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses , 2007 .

[59]  Kinam Park,et al.  The Korean Lexicon Project: A Lexical Decision Study on 30,930 Korean Words and Nonwords , 2017 .

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

[61]  Nathaniel J. Smith,et al.  The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic , 2013, Cognition.

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

[63]  Sook Whan Cho,et al.  The acquisition of word order in Korean , 1982 .

[64]  P. Hagoort.  Interplay between Syntax and Semantics during Sentence Comprehension: ERP Effects of Combining Syntactic and Semantic Violations , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[66]  Noam Chomsky.  Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures , 1993 .

[67]  Nick Chater,et al.  Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[68]  Ilkyu Kim,et al.  Rethinking “island effects” in Korean relativization , 2013 .

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

[70]  Xinzhang Yang.  Book review: Rudy Loock, Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures , 2012 .

[71]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[72]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences , 1983 .

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

[74]  D. Bates,et al.  Parsimonious Mixed Models , 2015, 1506.04967.

[75]  Jill Jegerski,et al.  Self-Paced Reading , 2013 .

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

[77]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[79]  E. Kaiser,et al.  Effects of Early Cues on the Processing of Chinese Relative Clauses: Evidence for Experience-Based Theories. , 2018, Cognitive science.

[80]  Jong-Yul Cha,et al.  Constraints on Clausal Complex Noun Phrases in Korean With Focus on the Gapless Relative Clause Construction , 2005 .

[81]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Recursion in Pragmatics , 2011 .

[82]  Jong-Yul Cha.  Semantics of Korean gapless relative clause constructions , 1999 .

[83]  Frank Keller,et al.  Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity , 2008, Cognition.

[84]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[85]  Tibor Kiss,et al.  Semantic Constraints on Relative Clause Extraposition , 2005 .

[86]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The processing of extraposed structures in English , 2012, Cognition.

[87]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus , 2008, Journal of Eye Movement Research.

[88]  G. Kjellmer.  Conjunctional/adverbial which in substandard English , 1988 .

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

[90]  Julia Herschensohn,et al.  Look and listen! The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers , 2018, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience.

[91]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[92]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

[93]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[94]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Distinguishing theories of syntactic expectation cost in sentence comprehension: evidence from Japanese , 2008 .

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

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