The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian☆
References (58)
- et al.
Relative clause structure, relative clause perception, and the change from SOV to SVO
Cognition
(1979) - et al.
Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses: Universal principles and language-specific relations
Cognition
(1986) A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1983)- et al.
Monitoring around the relative clause
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1980) - et al.
The Sausage Machine: a new two-stage parsing model
Cognition
(1978) Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese
Cognition
(1981)Order of main and subordinate clauses in sentence perception
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1973)- et al.
Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1981) - et al.
Relating between perceived actor and logical subject
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1968) Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language
Cognition
(1973)
Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
The development of sentence comprehension in Hungarian
Cognitive Psychology
Free recall of self-embedded English sentences
Information and Control
On the role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections
Cognition
A study of the ability to decode grammatically novel sentences
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
Recall of grammatical relations within clause-containing sentences
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
The cognitive basis for linguistic structures
Observations with self-embedded sentences
Psychonomic Science
The acquisition of complex sentences
Children's comprehension of relativized English sentences
Child Development
The acquisition of syntax in children from five to ten
Strategies in the comprehension of relative clauses
Language and Speech
Deciding among theories of the development of coordination in child speech
Stanford Papers And Reports on Child Language Development
Relative clause structure
Where do the subjects of sentences come from?
How do children handle relative clauses?
Archives de Psychologie
Comprehension of relative clauses by children five to nine years
Language and Speech
Young children's comprehension of complex sentences
Language and Speech
Cited by (129)
Still no evidence for audience design in syntax: Resumptive pronouns are not the exception
2022, Journal of Memory and LanguageCitation Excerpt :It is true, however, that what is easier for producers is often easier for comprehenders, making it hard to disentangle accounts based on audience design from those rooted in other production pressures. Indeed, when lexical similarity is high, passivization in these types of sentences also facilitates comprehension (Gordon, Hendrick, & Johnson, 2001; King & Just, 1991; MacWhinney & Pléh, 1988; Traxler, Morris, & Seely, 2002). It may therefore still be possible to make a case for passivization as a form of audience design, although we consider this unlikely in light of the existence of compelling difficulty-based accounts, as well as the broader lack of evidence for syntactic audience design.
Incongruence of grammatical subjects activates brain regions involved in perspective taking in a sentence-sentence verification task
2020, Journal of NeurolinguisticsPerspective-shifting are helpful for children in Chinese passive sentence comprehension
2020, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :There has been some evidence to suggest that perspective-shifting ability may play a direct role in sentence processing. Research into relative clause processing showed that the difficulties with object relative clauses were mainly due to the fact that readers have to shift their perspectives from “agents” and “patients” frequently (Macwhinney & Pléh, 1988). In another study, MacWhinney (1977) also pointed out that speakers tend to take the perspective of participants who play active roles in events (notably, agents), and so they prefer active to passive sentences when the agent is part of the thought.
Lexical and syntactic target language interactions in translation
2019, Acta PsychologicaSources of relative clause processing difficulty: Evidence from Russian
2017, Journal of Memory and LanguageCitation Excerpt :The structural properties of ORCs that gave rise to these effects are also not entirely clear. For instance, they could be due to (a) the more deeply embedded position of the extracted object (Lin & Bever, 2006), (b) the change in the perspective of the subject in each clause (MacWhinney & Pleh, 1998), or (c) the non-canonical appearance of the object before the subject (Holmes & O'Regan, 1981; Townsend & Bever, 2001). Further research is necessary in order to understand the nature of this late-stage comprehension difficulty for ORCs – and in particular, its interaction with similarity-based interference.
This is the native speaker that the non-native speaker outperformed: Individual, education-related differences in the processing and interpretation of Object Relative Clauses by native and non-native speakers of English
2017, Language SciencesCitation Excerpt :Previous research, testing both adults and children, has found that Subject Relative Clause sentences are easier to process than Object Relative Clause sentences. Several competing theories (see Reali and Christiansen, 2007; for review) have sought to explain these differences, with explanation focusing on either the semantic complexity of Object Relative Clauses (see, e.g., MacWhinney and Pleh, 1988), the syntactic complexity of Object Relative Clauses (see, e.g., Miyamoto and Nakamura, 2003) or that Object Relative Clauses place heavier demands on Working Memory than Subject Relative Clauses (see, e.g., Warren and Gibson, 2002). Other explanations for the observed asymmetry in processing of Subject Relative Clause and Object Relative Clause sentences focus on the role of experience in language processing and attainment.
- ☆
This research was carried out with support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and from the Hungarian Ministry of Education. Our thanks to Kamilla Boda for help in running the experiments.