Cover not available
Part of
Typical and Impaired Processing in Morphosyntax
Edited by Vincent Torrens
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 64] 2020
► pp. 11–34

Case(mis)matching in German free relative clauses in the self-paced reading paradigm

| University of Cologne
Off-line measures suggest that the hierarchy rule strategy applies to the processing of free relative clauses (RCs) in German, suggesting that case matches between covert head and RC-pronoun are preferred, whereas mismatches are dissociated based on their (non)conformity with the case hierarchy. We asked whether on-line sentence processing supports this pattern, and investigated free RCs with combinations of nominative, accusative and dative case in the self-paced reading paradigm. Our results are captured best by assuming two further strategies: the parallel syntactic function strategy and, especially, the subject-first strategy. Based on these strategies, we provide an Optimality Theory-style analysis that explains prior findings and particularities of incremental sentence processing, and that additionally accounts for the exceptional behaviour of accusative-nominative mismatches.
Keywords: German free relative clauses, headed relative clauses, case, incremental processing, self-paced reading, thematic roles, parallel syntactic function strategy, subject first strategy, case hierarchy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The experiments
    • Experiment 1
      • Experimental design and material
      • Participants
      • Procedure
      • Results
      • Interim discussion for Experiment 1
    • Experiment 2
      • Experimental design and material
      • Participants and procedure
      • Results
      • Interim discussion for Experiment 2
    • Experiment 3
      • Experimental design and material
      • Participants and procedure
      • Results
      • Interim discussion for Experiment 3
  • 3.General discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.64.01mew
References (26)
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bausewein, K. (1991). Haben kopflose Relativsätze tatsächlich keine Köpfe? In G. Fanselow & S. Felix (Eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale grammatischer Kategorien (pp. 144–158). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2002). The Argument Dependency Model: A neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Leipzig.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Minimality as vacuous distinctness: Evidence from cross-linguistic sentence comprehension. Lingua, 119(10), 1541–1559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 269–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crocker, M. W. (1994). On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 245–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dröge, A., Maffongelli, L., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2014). Luigi piace a Laura? Electrophysiological evidence for thematic reanalysis with Italian dative object experiencer verbs. In A. Bachrach, I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure (pp. 83–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Cavar, D., & Kliegl, R. (1999). Optimal parsing: Syntactic parsing preferences and optimality theory. In Rutgers Optimality Archive (ROA) 367. Rutgers State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
Groos, A., & van Riemsdijk, H. (1981). Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference (pp. 171–216). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S. (1998). Function, selection and innateness: The emergence of language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mewe, J. (2014). Kasusmatchting bei freien Relativsätzen im Deutschen – Eine experimentelle Untersuchung (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Cologne.
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probably languages. A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittner, K. (1991). Freie Relativsätze und die Kasushierarchie. In E. Feldbusch, R. Pogarell, & C. Weiß (Eds.), Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990. Band 1. (Linguistische Arbeiten 270) (pp. 341–347). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(2003). Kasuskonflikte bei freien Relativsätzen - Eine Korpusstudie. Deutsche Sprache, 31(3), 193–208.Google Scholar
Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles - Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Grammatical relations. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax – Theory and analysis. An international handbook (2nd ed., pp. 219–247). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2002). Optimality Theory. Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, M. (1997). Kasusphänomene in der Sprachverarbeitung. Eine Studie zur Verarbeitung von kasusmarkierten und Relativsatzkonstruktionen im Deutschen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Potsdam.
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. (2006). Free relatives. In M. Everaert & H. C. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (Vol. II, pp. 336–378). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R. (2011). Disagreement, variation, markedness and other apparent exceptions. In H. J. Simon & H. Wiese (Eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (pp. 339–359). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R., & Frisch, S. (2003). The resolution of case conflicts. A pilot study. In S. Fischer, R. van de Vijver, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Linguistics in Potsdam, Vol. 21, Experimental studies in linguistics 1 (pp. 91–103). Potsdam: Potsdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R., Frisch, S., & Zugck, M. (2006). Case matching. An empirical study on the distinction between abstract case and case morphology. Linguistische Berichte, 208, 357–383.Google Scholar
Zugck, M., & Vogel, R. (2004). Counting markedness. A corpus investigation on German free relative constructions. In S. Fischer, R. van de Vijver, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Linguistics in Potsdam, Vol. 21: Experimental studies in linguistics 1 (pp. 105–122). Potsdam: University Press.Google Scholar