Abstract

Most prior studies have reported that subject-extracted relative clauses (SRCs) are easier to process than object-extracted relative clauses (ORCs). However, whether such an SRC preference is universal across different languages remains an open question. Several reports from Chinese have provided conflicting results; thus, in the present study, we conducted two self-paced reading experiments to examine the comprehension of Chinese relative clauses. The results demonstrated a clear ORC preference that Chinese ORCs were easier to comprehend than Chinese SRCs. These findings were most compatible with the prediction of the integration cost account, which claims that the processing difference between SRCs and ORCs arises at the point of dependency formation. The ORC preference in Chinese poses a challenge to the universality of the SRC preference assumed by the structural distance hypothesis and highlights the values of cross-linguistic research.

Highlights

  • Empirical cross-linguistic research on different aspects of sentence processing has provided evidence for the universality and specificity of linguistic processing mechanisms

  • Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction showed that accuracy of filler sentences (96.74%) was significantly higher than that of the subject-extracted relative clauses (SRCs) (93.34%, p = 0.009), and marginally higher than that of the object-extracted relative clauses (ORCs) (94.08%, p = 0.060), but there was no significant difference between the SRC and the ORC conditions (p = 1.000)

  • The results of Experiment 1 clearly showed a processing preference for ORCs over SRCs, which is in line with previous findings (e.g., Yang and Perfetti, 2006; Packard et al, 2010; Bulut et al, 2018)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Empirical cross-linguistic research on different aspects of sentence processing has provided evidence for the universality and specificity of linguistic processing mechanisms. Researchers investigating cross-linguistic syntactic processing have studied relative clause (RC) structures. Research on a wide range of languages has frequently found that there is a preference for SRCs over ORCs when RCs contain full noun phrases (NPs), such as English (e.g., King and Just, 1991; King and Kutas, 1995; Stromswold et al, 1996; Gibson, 1998; Traxler et al, 2002; Grodner and Gibson, 2005), Dutch (e.g., Frazier, 1987; Mak et al, 2002), French (e.g., Holmes and O’Regan, 1981), and German (e.g., Mecklinger et al, 1995).

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call