English Relative Clauses

• Subject Relative– The reporter who attacked the senator didn’t check

the facts carefully first.

• Object Relative– The reporter who the senator attacked didn’t check

the facts carefully first.

Lots of evidence that English speakers find SRs easier(from reading times, ERPs, fMRI, …)

Some Possible Reasons• Word order typicality

– SR has default SVO order in RC• reporter attacked senator didn’t …

– OR has 2 NPs in a row & then 2 verbs in a row• reporter senator attacked didn’t …

• SR has shorter distance from Head (= Filler) to typical location (= Gap) in sentence for its role

– Adds to working memory load & integration difficulty– Linear distance vs Structural distance

Filler-Gap Linear Distance

• Subject Relative– The reporter1 [who 1attacked the senator] didn’t …

FILLER GAP

• Object Relative– The reporter1 [who the senator attacked 1] didn’t …

FILLER GAP

Some Possible Reasons• Word order typicality

– SR has default SVO order in RC• reporter attacked senator didn’t …

– OR has 2 NPs in a row & then 2 verbs in a row• reporter senator attacked didn’t …

• SR has shorter distance from Head (= Filler) to typical location (= Gap) in sentence for its role

– Adds to working memory load & integration difficulty– Linear distance vs Structural distance

• When SR modifies subject of sentence (as in examples), Head plays more similar role in both clauses

– But, SRs also easier in English when modify main clause Object

• …

• Some of these are confounded in any one language, but can be deconfounded by comparing across languages

RCs Across Languages • English

– SVO order, relatively inflexible– Arguments generally can’t be dropped, pronominalized instead– RC postnominal– Relative pronoun (usually) precedes RC, so (usually) no ambiguity about whether is a RC– ORs harder than SRs

• Japanese & Korean– SOV order, but flexible– Easily recoverable arguments can be dropped– RC prenominal– No relativizer, so temporary ambiguity about whether is a RC

• Case particles make noun roles clear, but there’s temporary ambiguity about whether they play those roles in the main clause or some kind of embedded clause

– Most evidence so far shows ORs harder than SRs, like English(Ishizuka et al., 2003; Miyamoto & Nakamura, 2003; Ueno & Garnsey, 2006; Kwon et al., in

press (Korean); but Ishizuka et al., 2006)

• Mandarin– SVO order, more flexible than English– Easily recoverable arguments can be dropped– RC prenominal– Relativizer follows RC, so temporary ambiguity about whether is a RC– Evidence so far mixed, but more find SRs harder than ORs (opposite English)

(Hsiao & Gibson, 2003; Hsu & Chen, 2009; Lin & Garnsey, 2010; Lin, 2010; but Lin & Bever, 2006)

SR Modifying Main Clause Object: 新聞 已經 開始 詳細 報導 質詢 議員 的 官員 xinwen yijing kaishi xiangxi baodao zhixun yiyuan de quanyuan news already begin detail report interrogate councilman DE official

The news has already begun to report in detail about the official who interrogated the councilman.

OR Modifying Main Clause Object:新聞 已經 開始 詳細 報導 議員 質詢 的 官員 xinwen yijing kaishi xiangxi baodao yiyuan zhixun de quanyuan news already begin detail report councilman interrogate DE official

The news has already begun to report in detail about the official who the councilman interrogated.

Mandarin RCs

Lin & Garnsey, 2010; Lin, 2010

Mandarin RC ProcessingORs easier than SRs?(Hsiao & Gibson, 2003; Packard, 2005; Hsu & Chen, 2009; Lin, 2010; but Lin & Bever, 2006)

- ORs have default SVO argument order- ORs have shorter GAP-FILLER distance

… councilman interrogate ___1 DE official1 GAP FILLER

vs … ___1 interrogate councilman DE official1 GAP FILLER

- But effects often weak or absent in simple RCs

SR vs OR Modifying Main Clause SubjectR

eadi

ng T

ime

(Mse

c)

SR: [like teacher DE girl ] already go home PERIODOR: [teacher like DE girl ] already go home PERIOD

** *

*

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

SR vs OR with Classifier Modifying Main Clause Subject

** *

*

Rea

ding

Tim

e (M

sec)

SR: [That+CL like teacher DE girl ] already go home PERIODOR: [That+CL teacher like DE girl ] already go home PERIOD

* *

* *

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

SR vs OR Modifying Main Clause Object

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

MatObj_OR

MatOb_SR

SR: Parents invite like teacher DE girl periodOR: Parents invite teacher like DE girl period

SR: Parents invite [ like teacher DE girl] PERIODOR: Parents invite [teacher like DE girl] PERIOD

Rea

ding

Tim

e (M

sec)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

**

**

SR vs OR with Classifier Modifying Main Clause Object

*

Rea

ding

Tim

e (M

sec)

*

*

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

SR: Parents invite [ that+CL like teacher DE girl] PERIODOR: Parents invite [that+CL teacher like DE girl] PERIOD

OR with Classifier (& Pronoun) Modifying Main Clause Object

Rea

ding

Tim

e (M

sec)

*

*

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

OR: Parents invite [that+CL teacher like DE girl] PERIODOR(Pron):Parents invite [that+CL we like DE girl] PERIODOR(Mis): Parents invite [that+*CL teacher like DE pet] PERIOD

*

Topicalization of Main Clause Object

Main clause objects can be topicalized by fronting- Regardless of whether the object is modified by a RC

OR Modifying Topicalized Main Clause Object:議員 質詢 的 官員 新聞 已經 開始 詳細 報導yiyuan zhixun de guanyuan xinwen yijing kaishi xiangxi baodaocouncilman interrogate DE official news already begin detail report

About the official who the councilman interrogated, the news has already begun to report in detail.

SR Modifying Topicalized Main Clause Object: 質詢 議員 的 官員 新聞 已經 開始 詳細 報導zhixun yiyuan de guanyuan xinwen yijing kaishi xiangxi baodaointerrogate councilman DE official news already begin detail report

About the official who interrogated the councilman, the news has already begun to report in detail.

Dropping the Head NounArguments that would be pronominalized in Eng can be dropped in Mandarin

- Including Head N of a RC - Which can be pronominalized as “the one” or “the person” in English- Relativizer DE remains when the HN is dropped

Headless Topicalized OR:議員 質詢 的 官員 新聞 已經 開始 詳細 報導yiyuan zhixun de guanyuan xinwen yijing kaishi xiangxi baodaocouncilman interrogate DE official news already begin detail report

About the person/one who the councilman interrogated, the news has already begun to report in detail.

Headless Topicalized SR: 質詢 議員 的 官員 新聞 已經 開始 詳細 報導zhixun yiyuan de guanyuan xinwen yijing kaishi xiangxi baodaointerrogate councilman DE official news already begin detail report

About the person/one who interrogated the councilman, the news has already begun to report in detail.

Ambiguity when Head N Dropped

in Topicalized OR In examples so far

- Main clause subject noun (news) is Inanimate - So it’s not a possible HN for either a SR or OR with verb interrogate

In contrast, when main clause subject noun is Animate (reporter)- Possible to mistake it as the HN of the RC

Headless Topicalized SR: 質詢 議員 的 官員 記者 已經 開始 詳細 報導zhixun yiyuan de guanyuan jizhe yijing kaishi xiangxi baodaointerrogate councilman DE official reporter already begin detail report

Do Mandarin speakers use Animacy information immediately to help them interpret ambiguous structural relationships in sentences?

- If yes, unlikely to mistake news as the HN, in spite of its position after DE- But are likely to mistake reporter in that position as HN

Possible Interpretations of Ambiguity

Headless Topicalized SR: 質詢 議員 的 官員 記者 已經 開始 詳細 報導zhixun yiyuan de guanyuan jizhe yijing kaishi xiangxi baodaointerrogate councilman DE official reporter already begin detail report

Multiple possible interpretations:

1. The reporter who interrogated the councilman has already begun to report about it in detail.

2. About the interrogation of the councilman (by someone unspecified), the reporter has already begun to report in detail.

…

Some Predictions

1. SRs harder to process than ORs (Hsiao & Gibson, 2003; see, however, Lin & Bever, 2006)

2. Sentences with Headless RCs harder to process than ones with Heads

3. Animate main clause subject nouns are more likely to be interpreted as the missing head in headless RCs and thus to show more processing difficulty when that turns out not to be true

Stimuli in Two Experiments

• 80 sets of 8 versions, all with topicalized main clause object modified by RC- OR vs SR (Both Expts)- HN Present vs HN Absent (Both Expts)- Main clause Subject Noun Animate (Expt 1) vs Inanimate (Expt 2)

• +60 distractor sentences

Participants

Native-Mandarin-speaking students at Taiwan

Normal University

- Varying degrees of fluency in other lgs, including English

- Experiment 1 = 40

- Experiment 2 = 48

Procedure

- Self-paced central word-by-word reading, each word replacing previous one

- Yes/No comprehension questions after 23% (Expt 1)

& 37% (Expt 2) of trials

- Presented in Chinese characters

- Native-Mandarin-speaking experimenter conducted session entirely in Mandarin

Summary of Results & Some Interpretation

• Mandarin SRs are harder than ORs, opposite the pattern for English– Higher memory load &/or integration difficulty due to word order in SR

because of Head-Final order of Mandarin RC– Difference lasts until end of sentence when RC Head Noun & main

clause Subject Noun both Animate– But disappears after main clause Subject Noun when it’s Inanimate

• Probably because that makes it less confusable with RC Head Noun(Warren & Gibson,

2002; Lewis et al., 2006)

• Headless RCs harder than RCs with overt Heads, but an Inanimate main clause Subject Noun makes them MUCH easier– Helps immediately to rule out alternative interpretations that are possible

when both Ns Animate

• Thus, Mandarin speakers do make immediate use of plausibility to resolve structural ambiguity