Abstract
Reali and Christiansen (2007a) found that pronominal object relative clauses were easier to process than analogous subject relative clauses, except when the pronoun is it. They attributed this to it occurring more frequently in subject relatives than in object relatives, while the opposite was true for the other pronouns. We find that their it relative clause processing result was due to a garden path like effect caused by participants misinterpreting the referent of the grammatical subject of the sentence containing the relative clause, rather than any inherent properties of the relative clause itself. We also find that when reduced object relative clauses are taken into account, it occurs more frequently in object relative clauses than subject relative clauses. Our results are broadly consistent with expectation-based accounts of processing, but not with a fine-grained account that would predict different behavior for reduced and unreduced object relative clauses.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 58-76 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Journal of Memory and Language |
| Volume | 75 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 Jan 1 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Constraint-based approach
- Corpus analysis
- Discourse
- Relative clause
- Sentence processing
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
- Language and Linguistics
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Linguistics and Language
- Artificial Intelligence
Cite this
The processing of it object relative clauses : Evidence against a fine-grained frequency account. / Heider, Paul M.; Dery, Jeruen E.; Roland, Douglas William.
In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 75, 01.01.2014, p. 58-76.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The processing of it object relative clauses
T2 - Evidence against a fine-grained frequency account
AU - Heider, Paul M.
AU - Dery, Jeruen E.
AU - Roland, Douglas William
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - Reali and Christiansen (2007a) found that pronominal object relative clauses were easier to process than analogous subject relative clauses, except when the pronoun is it. They attributed this to it occurring more frequently in subject relatives than in object relatives, while the opposite was true for the other pronouns. We find that their it relative clause processing result was due to a garden path like effect caused by participants misinterpreting the referent of the grammatical subject of the sentence containing the relative clause, rather than any inherent properties of the relative clause itself. We also find that when reduced object relative clauses are taken into account, it occurs more frequently in object relative clauses than subject relative clauses. Our results are broadly consistent with expectation-based accounts of processing, but not with a fine-grained account that would predict different behavior for reduced and unreduced object relative clauses.
AB - Reali and Christiansen (2007a) found that pronominal object relative clauses were easier to process than analogous subject relative clauses, except when the pronoun is it. They attributed this to it occurring more frequently in subject relatives than in object relatives, while the opposite was true for the other pronouns. We find that their it relative clause processing result was due to a garden path like effect caused by participants misinterpreting the referent of the grammatical subject of the sentence containing the relative clause, rather than any inherent properties of the relative clause itself. We also find that when reduced object relative clauses are taken into account, it occurs more frequently in object relative clauses than subject relative clauses. Our results are broadly consistent with expectation-based accounts of processing, but not with a fine-grained account that would predict different behavior for reduced and unreduced object relative clauses.
KW - Constraint-based approach
KW - Corpus analysis
KW - Discourse
KW - Relative clause
KW - Sentence processing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902275416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902275416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.001
M3 - Article
VL - 75
SP - 58
EP - 76
JO - Journal of Memory and Language
JF - Journal of Memory and Language
SN - 0749-596X
ER -