When initial thematic role attribution lingers
Evidence for digging-in effects in Italian relative clauses
In Italian, relative clauses are syntactically ambiguous between a subject and an object reading when the subject and the object have the same number. In the absence of disambiguating cues, the parser analyzes the sentence as a subject relative clause, as subject relative clauses are easier to process than object relative clauses. However, the object reading can be triggered by morpho-syntactic and syntactic cues, such as agreement and word order. In two self-paced reading experiments, we investigate the effectiveness of these cues in triggering an object reanalysis by comparing cues that appear at an early processing stage (inside the relative clause) and cues that appear at a late processing stage (after the relative clause). Results show that reanalysis is attained more effortlessly for early cues, while late cues appears to trigger little or no reanalysis, suggesting that the longer the processor has been committed to the incorrect analysis, the harder is to undo the initial commitment (digging-in effect; Tabor & Hutchins, 2004; see also Ferreira & Henderson, 1991). From these results, we argue that one critical factor that affects ease of parsing is the processing stage at which a cue is made available in the input. We conclude with a discussion on the self-organized sentence processing model (SOSP), which provides a framework to capture these effects.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Experiment 1: Disambiguation by early cues
- 2.1Method
- 2.1.1Participants, materials and design
- 2.1.2Procedure
- 2.1.3Data analyses
- 2.1.4Results
- Reading times
- Region 4
- Comprehension accuracy
- 2.1.5Discussion
- 3.Experiment 2: Disambiguation by a late cue
- 3.1Method
- 3.1.1Participants, materials and design
- 3.1.2Procedure
- 3.1.3Data analyses
- 3.1.4Results
- Reading times
- Region 7
- Region 8
- Comprehension accuracy
- 3.1.5Discussion
- 4.Conclusion
-
References
References (32)
References
Adani, F., Van der Lely, H. K., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2010). Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua, 120(9), 2148–2166.
Arosio, F., Adani, F., & Guasti, M. T. (2009). Grammatical features in the comprehension of Italian relative clases by children. In J. M. Brucart, A. Gavarró, & J. Solà (Eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation, and acquisition (pp. 138–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bates, D., Martin M., Ben B., & Steve W. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
Belletti, A., & Contemori, C. (2010). Disentangling the mastery of object relatives in children and adults. Evidence from Italian. In V. Moscati & E. Servidio (Eds.), STiL - Studies in Linguistics (CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition 4) (pp. 25–47). Siena: University of Sienna.
Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., Brunato, D., & Rizzi, L. (2012). Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children’s comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua, 122(10), 1053–1069.
Caramazza, A., & Zurif, E. B. (1976). Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and language, 3(4), 572–582.
De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.
Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 328–337.
Frazier, L. (1978).
On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance, XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119(1), 67–88.
Garraffa, M., & Grillo, N. (2008). Canonicity effects as grammatical phenomena. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(2), 177–197.
Grillo, N. (2009). Generalized minimality: Feature impoverishment and comprehension deficits in agrammatism. Lingua, 119(10), 1426–1443.
Guasti, M. T., Vernice, M., & Franck, J. (2018). Continuity in the adult and children’s comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in French and Italian. Languages, 3(3), 24.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228.
King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and causal- level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 376–395.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-32.
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation‐based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 50–68.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466–490.
McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67–91.
R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer Software]. Vienna. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 8, 499–520.
Smith, G., & Tabor, W. (2018). Toward a theory of timing effects in self organized sentence processing. In I. Juvina, J. Houpt, & C. Meyers (Eds.), Proceedings of ICCM 2018, 16th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 21-24 July, University of Wisconsin, Madison (pp. 138–143). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 431.
Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166.
Villata, S., Sprouse, J., & Tabor, W. (2019). Modeling ungrammaticality: A self-organizing model of islands. In A. K. Goel, C. M. Seifert, & C. Freska (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1178–1184). Montreal, QB: Cognitive Science Society.
Villata, S., Tabor, W., & Franck, J. (2018). Encoding and retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from agreement. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Papadopoulou, Despina, Nikolaos Amvrazis, Gerakini Douka & Alexandros Tantos
2024.
Triangulating learner corpus and online experimental data: Evidence from gender agreement and relative clauses in L2 Greek.
The Modern Language Journal
Biondo, N., E. Pagliarini, V. Moscati, L. Rizzi & A. Belletti
2023.
Features matter: the role of number and gender features during the online processing of subject- and object- relative clauses in Italian.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 38:6
► pp. 802 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.