On the processing of object relative clauses

Authors

  • Letícia M.S. Corrêa Department of Letters, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Author
  • Erica Dos S. Rodrigues Department of Letters, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Author
  • Renê Forster Department of Language Studies, Rio de Janeiro State University, Brazil Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2019/10/0014/000376

Keywords:

relative clauses, featural intervention, interference

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of featural mismatch in the processing of object relative clauses (ORCs). A self-paced reading experiment is reported in which the matching of formal and semantic number features of the head noun and the relative clause (RC) subject is manipulated. While the predicted full mismatching intervention/interference effect was not obtained, collective nouns gave rise to the shortest reading times in both the subject and the RC verb regions. A follow-up suggests that it is subject-verb agreement in both the RC and the main clause that is vulnerable to semantic interference.

 

References

Adani, F. 2011. Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: Towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 141–165.

Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., Rohde, D. 2006. The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 541–553.

Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., Ko, K. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2).

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M. 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 97–114.

Gordon, P.C., Hendrick, R., Levine, W.H. 2002. Memory load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13 (5), 425–30.

Grillo, N. 2009. Generalized Minimality: Feature impoverishment and comprehension deficits in agrammatism. Lingua, 119(10), 1426–1443.

Kreiner, H., Garrod, S., Sturt, P. 2013. Number agreement in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(6), 829–874.

Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Van Dyke, J. A., McElree, B. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166.

Villata, S., Rizzi, L., Franck, J. 2016. Intervention effects and Relativized Minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua, 179,

Villata, S., Tabor, W., Franck, J. 2018. Encoding and Retrieval Interference in Sentence Comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (2), 1-16.

Wagers, M., Lau, E. Phillips. C. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61 (2), 206-237.

Wanner, E., Maratsos, M. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. In Halle, G. A., Morris, A., Bresnan, J. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality (pp. 119–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Downloads

Published

01-01-2019

How to Cite

On the processing of object relative clauses. (2019). Linguistic Proceedings Series, 10(1), 57-60. https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2019/10/0014/000376

Share

Similar Articles

1-10 of 31

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.