Cover not available

Article In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2026
Edited by Remco Knooihuizen, Marloes Oomen and Alex Reuneker
[Nota Bene 3:2] 2026

Principle C reconstruction effects in Dutch

A coreference judgment experiment and a self-paced reading experiment

ORCiD logo with link | Utrecht University
ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
According to Principle C of the Binding Theory, R-expressions must be free. On the assumption that Ā-movement does not create new binding options, R-expressions embedded in Ā-moved constituents should not be able to corefer with later pronouns c-commanding their gaps (e.g. [Which side of Elizabeth] does she prefer ___?). Yet, participants in formal judgment experiments accept such coreference relatively often. This paper reports on two novel experiments: a coreference judgment experiment to investigate the coreference patterns in Dutch, and a self-paced reading experiment testing the same stimuli to chart the online processing of these structures. In line with earlier experiments, we find that Principle C violations are frequently accepted in Dutch, and in line with psycholinguistic literature, we show that the parser is sensitive to grammatical information during the parse: gender-mismatch effects between the pronoun and the embedded R-expression emerge, except when coreference is ruled out because a Principle C violation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Experiments collecting offline data
    • 2.2Experiments collecting online data
    • 2.3Linking hypotheses
  • 3.Experiment 1: Coreference judgments
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Design and materials
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Analysis
    • 3.5Results
  • 4.Experiment 2: Self-paced reading
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Design and materials
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Analysis
    • 4.5Results
  • 5.General discussion
  • Notes
  • References
References (27)
References
Adger, David, Alex Drummond, David Hall & Coppe van Urk, C. 2017. Is there Condition C reconstruction? In Andrew Lamont & Katerina Tetzloff (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 471, 21–30. GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Berkum, Jos, Arnout Koornneef, Marte Otten & Mante Nieuwland. 2007. Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research 11461, 158–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin & Eman Al Khalaf. 2019. No argument-adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Journal of Linguistics 55(2), 247–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Casteren, Maarten & Matthew Davis. 2006. Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavioral Research Methods 38(4), 584–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gompel, Roger & Simon Liversedge. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29(1), 128–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kazanina, Nina, Ellen Lau, Moti Lieberman, Masaya Yoshida, & Colin Phillips. 2007. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 56(3), 384–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kush, Dave & Brian Dillon. 2021. Principle B constrains the processing of cataphora: Evidence for syntactic and discourse predictions. Journal of Memory and Language 1201, Article 104254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2026. Principle B is an early, predictive filter on active cataphor resolution: Eye-tracking evidence. Memory & Cognition. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenth, Russell & Julia Piaskowski. 2026. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 2.0.2, [URL]
Lewis, Shevaun & Colin Phillips. 2015. Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44(1), 27–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdecke, Daniel. 2018. ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software 3(26), Article 772. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, Don. 1984. An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods of investigating immediate processes in reading. In David Kieras and Marcel Just (eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research, 69–89. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pablos, Leticia, Jenny Doetjes, Bobby Ruijgrok & Lisa Cheng. 2015. Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 61, Article 1638. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patterson, Clare & Claudia Felser. 2019. Delayed application of Binding Condition C during cataphoric pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 481, 453–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin, Marta Wierzba & Doreen Georgi. 2023. Condition C in German A′-movement: Tackling challenges in experimental research on reconstruction. Journal of Linguistics 59(3), 577–622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, Richard, Aya Meltzer-Asscher & Dominique Sportiche. 2021. There is reconstruction for Condition C in English questions. In Alessa Farinella & Angelica Hill (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 511, 205–214. GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Experimental evidence for the Condition C argument-adjunct asymmetry in English questions. In Özge Bakay, Breanna Pratley, Eva Neu & Peyton Deal (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 521, 145–158. GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. Condition C, pronoun strength, and the raising analysis of relative clauses. In Shweta Akolkar, Amber Galvano, Akil Ismael, Kang Franco Liu & Line Mikkelsen (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 421, 374–381. Cascadilla.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sturt, Patrick, Christoph Scheepers & Martin Pickering. 2002. Syntactic ambiguity after initial misanalysis: The role of recency. Journal of Memory and Language 461, 371–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sturt, Patrick. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 481, 542–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szarvas, Timea. 2025. Why we’re still debating principle C reconstruction: A comparative experimental study. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 101, Article 18707. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzba, Marta, Martin Salzmann & Doreen Georgi. 2021. An experimental investigation of reconstruction for Condition C in German A′-movement. In Sanghee Kim, Naomi Kurtz, Matthew Hewett & Corinne Kasper (eds.), Proceedings of CLS 561, 479–491. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehr, Jérémy & Florian Schwarz. 2018. PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue