Ambiguity in the processing of Mandarin Chinese relative clauses

One factor cannot explain it all

Michael P. Mansbridge, Katsuo Tamaoka, Kexin Xiong, Rinus G. Verdonschot

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study addresses the question of whether native Mandarin Chinese speakers process and comprehend subject-extracted relative clauses (SRC) more readily than objectextracted relative clauses (ORC) in Mandarin Chinese. Presently, this has been a hotly debated issue, with various studies producing contrasting results. Using two eye-tracking experiments with ambiguous and unambiguous RCs, this study shows that both ORCs and SRCs have different processing requirements depending on the locus and time course during reading. The results reveal that ORC reading was possibly facilitated by linear/temporal integration and canonicity. On the other hand, similarity-based interference made ORCs more difficult, and expectation-based processing was more prominent for unambiguous ORCs. Overall, RC processing in Mandarin should not be broken down to a single ORC (dis)advantage, but understood as multiple interdependent factors influencing whether ORCs are either more difficult or easier to parse depending on the task and context at hand.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0178369
JournalPLoS One
Volume12
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Jun 1

Fingerprint

mandarins
Reading
Processing
Hand
crossover interference
hands
eyes
loci
Experiments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Ambiguity in the processing of Mandarin Chinese relative clauses : One factor cannot explain it all. / Mansbridge, Michael P.; Tamaoka, Katsuo; Xiong, Kexin; Verdonschot, Rinus G.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 12, No. 6, e0178369, 01.06.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mansbridge, Michael P. ; Tamaoka, Katsuo ; Xiong, Kexin ; Verdonschot, Rinus G. / Ambiguity in the processing of Mandarin Chinese relative clauses : One factor cannot explain it all. In: PLoS One. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 6.
@article{5712c274bbcf4076956a297d9d29ae6a,
title = "Ambiguity in the processing of Mandarin Chinese relative clauses: One factor cannot explain it all",
abstract = "This study addresses the question of whether native Mandarin Chinese speakers process and comprehend subject-extracted relative clauses (SRC) more readily than objectextracted relative clauses (ORC) in Mandarin Chinese. Presently, this has been a hotly debated issue, with various studies producing contrasting results. Using two eye-tracking experiments with ambiguous and unambiguous RCs, this study shows that both ORCs and SRCs have different processing requirements depending on the locus and time course during reading. The results reveal that ORC reading was possibly facilitated by linear/temporal integration and canonicity. On the other hand, similarity-based interference made ORCs more difficult, and expectation-based processing was more prominent for unambiguous ORCs. Overall, RC processing in Mandarin should not be broken down to a single ORC (dis)advantage, but understood as multiple interdependent factors influencing whether ORCs are either more difficult or easier to parse depending on the task and context at hand.",
author = "Mansbridge, {Michael P.} and Katsuo Tamaoka and Kexin Xiong and Verdonschot, {Rinus G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0178369",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ambiguity in the processing of Mandarin Chinese relative clauses

T2 - One factor cannot explain it all

AU - Mansbridge, Michael P.

AU - Tamaoka, Katsuo

AU - Xiong, Kexin

AU - Verdonschot, Rinus G.

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - This study addresses the question of whether native Mandarin Chinese speakers process and comprehend subject-extracted relative clauses (SRC) more readily than objectextracted relative clauses (ORC) in Mandarin Chinese. Presently, this has been a hotly debated issue, with various studies producing contrasting results. Using two eye-tracking experiments with ambiguous and unambiguous RCs, this study shows that both ORCs and SRCs have different processing requirements depending on the locus and time course during reading. The results reveal that ORC reading was possibly facilitated by linear/temporal integration and canonicity. On the other hand, similarity-based interference made ORCs more difficult, and expectation-based processing was more prominent for unambiguous ORCs. Overall, RC processing in Mandarin should not be broken down to a single ORC (dis)advantage, but understood as multiple interdependent factors influencing whether ORCs are either more difficult or easier to parse depending on the task and context at hand.

AB - This study addresses the question of whether native Mandarin Chinese speakers process and comprehend subject-extracted relative clauses (SRC) more readily than objectextracted relative clauses (ORC) in Mandarin Chinese. Presently, this has been a hotly debated issue, with various studies producing contrasting results. Using two eye-tracking experiments with ambiguous and unambiguous RCs, this study shows that both ORCs and SRCs have different processing requirements depending on the locus and time course during reading. The results reveal that ORC reading was possibly facilitated by linear/temporal integration and canonicity. On the other hand, similarity-based interference made ORCs more difficult, and expectation-based processing was more prominent for unambiguous ORCs. Overall, RC processing in Mandarin should not be broken down to a single ORC (dis)advantage, but understood as multiple interdependent factors influencing whether ORCs are either more difficult or easier to parse depending on the task and context at hand.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020397276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020397276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0178369

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0178369

M3 - Article

VL - 12

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 6

M1 - e0178369

ER -