Chapter published in:
Typical and Impaired Processing in Morphosyntax
Edited by Vincent Torrens
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 64] 2020
► pp. 57–71

When initial thematic role attribution lingers

Evidence for digging-in effects in Italian relative clauses

| University of Connecticut
| IUSS Scuola Universitaria Superiore Pavia | CRIL Università del Salento
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.
Keywords: Italian, relative clauses, ambiguity, reanalysis, digging-in effect, self-paced reading, self-organized sentence processing model, SOSP, cue-based memory model
Published online: 21 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.64.03vil
References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Martin M., Ben B., & Steve W.
(2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vincenzi, M.
(1991) Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M.
(1991) Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J.
(1980) Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 328–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L.
(1978)  On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.
(1987) Sentence processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance, XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L.
(2009) Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119(1), 67–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garraffa, M., & Grillo, N.
(2008) Canonicity effects as grammatical phenomena. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(2), 177–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grillo, N.
(2009) Generalized minimality: Feature impoverishment and comprehension deficits in agrammatism. Lingua, 119(10), 1426–1443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D.
(1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
(2015) lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-32.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S.
(2005) An activation‐based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466–490. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B.
(2000) Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L.
(2003) Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer Software]. Vienna. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A.
(2012) E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B.
(2006) Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Villata, S., Tabor, W., & Franck, J.
(2018) Encoding and retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from agreement. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2.Google Scholar