| |
Abstract:
In the sentence processing, language acquisition, and
neuropsychological literatures, some types of sentences have proven
to be more difficult to process than others. For example, it is
claimed that conjoined clauses (example 1) are easier to process
than relative clauses (2- 5), and that subject-gap relatives (2, 3)
are easier to process than object-gap relatives (4, 5). Several
explanations have been proposed to account for these differences
(Caplan and Waters 1999, Gibson 1998, Grodzinsky 1990, Hamburger
and Crain 1982, King and Just 1991). We tested conjoined clauses
and these two types of relative clauses in center- embedded and
right branching contexts in two languages: Brazilian Portuguese
(BP) and English. The methodology was RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual
Presentation). Based on previous work showing that performance is
strongly affected by word presentation duration (Forster 1971,
Miyake et al. 1994), the current experiment presented words for
200ms/word (0ms inter-word interval). The dependent variables were
grammaticality judgments and reaction time. One goal was to examine
whether type of embedding (right x center) causes differences in
processing in both languages. We also investigated whether
subject-gap relatives are easier than object-gap relatives in BP,
as in English. A final question was whether all types of relative
clauses are more difficult to process than conjoined clauses. The
difference between relative (2) and conjoined clauses (1) was
reduced to the presence or absence of the conjunction "and" versus
the relative pronoun "that". This differs from previous experiments
(e.g. King and Just 1991) in which the relative sentences were
center-embedded. In most theories of working memory, sentence (1)
should be more difficult than sentence (2), since the distance
between the gap and its antecedent (the child) in (1) is longer
than the distance between the gap and its antecedent (the man) in
(2). The comparison between these two sentences can shed light onto
the factors that modulate processing difficulty in these sentences.
The performance data were the most informative. In particular,
in BP, center-embedded relative clauses were more difficult to
process than right-branching relatives. In English, by contrast,
there was no effect of embedding. In English, object relative
sentences were more difficult to parse than subject relative
sentences independent of the type of embedding. BP also showed a
tendency for object relative sentences to be more difficult than
subject relative sentences, as in English. However, relative
sentences were no more difficult than conjoined sentences. In BP,
conjoined sentences were more difficult than right branching
relatives, and in English the difference in performance between
subject right-branching and conjoined sentences was not
significant. Crucially, this suggests that not all types of
relative sentences are more difficult to process than conjoined
sentences. The present findings have consequences for the models of
Caplan & Waters (1999), Gibson (1998) and King & Just
(1991). For example, Gibson would predict that right branching
relative sentences are more difficult to process than
center-embedded relative sentences in both languages. The model
could not explain why there is no embedding effect in English, but
there is in BP. In fact, BP is the first language to show the
effect of embedding (cf. the study of Serbo-Croatian by Lukatela et
al. 1995).
1) The child is talking to the man and _is pinching the woman.
(Conjoined)
2) The child is talking to the man that _ is pinching the woman.
(Right-branching - subject)
3) The man that _ is pinching the woman is talking to the child.
(Center-embedded - subject)
4) The child is talking to the man that the woman is pinching _.
(Right-branching - object)
5) The man that the woman is pinching _ is talking to the child.
(Center-embedded - object)
|
