Have a personal or library account? Click to login
New evidence on the Pseudorelative-First Hypothesis: Spanish attachment preferences revisited Cover

New evidence on the Pseudorelative-First Hypothesis: Spanish attachment preferences revisited

Open Access
|Jun 2020

References

  1. Aldama García, N., 2016. Pseudo-relatives complement of perception predicates. Master’s Thesis. Universidad del País Vasco /Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Spain.
  2. Angelopoulos, N., 2015. Explorations of (Greek) pseudo-relatives. Master’s Thesis. University of California, USA.
  3. Augurzky, P., 2005. Attaching relative clauses in German: The role of implicit and explicit prosody in sentence processing. PhD Dissertation. Universität Leipzig, Germany.
  4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. and Walker, S., 2018. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 1.1-17. [Accessed 13 May 2018]. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.
  5. Brito, A. M., 1995. Sobre algumas construções pseudorelativas em português. Revista da Faculdade de Letras: Línguas e Literaturas, no. 12, pp. 25-54.
  6. Brysbaert, M. and D. C. Mitchell., 1996. Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, no. 49A, pp. 664-695.10.1080/027249896392540
  7. Carreiras, M. and C. Clifton., 1993. Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, no. 36, pp. 353-372.10.1177/002383099303600401
  8. Carreiras, M. and C. Clifton., 1999. Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eye-tracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, no. 27, pp. 826-833.10.3758/BF03198535
  9. Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., de la Cruz Pavía, I. and Laka, I., 2010. Subject relative Clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, no. 115, pp. 79-92.10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.012
  10. Cinque, G., 1992. The pseudo-relative and ACC-ing constructions after verbs of perception. In: G. Cinque, ed. Italian syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 244-275.
  11. Cuetos, F. and D. C. Mitchell., 1988. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing. Cognition, no. 30, pp. 73-105.10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2
  12. De Vincenzi, M. and Job, R., 1993. Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, no. 22, pp. 189-206.10.1007/BF01067830
  13. Ehrlich, K., Fernández, E., Fodor, J. D., StenshoeL, E. and Vinereanu, M., 1999. Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. The City University of New York, USA, 18-20 March.
  14. Fodor, J. D., 2002. Prosodic disambiguation in silent Reading. In: M. Hirotani, ed. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 113-132.
  15. Fraga, I., García-orza, J. and Acuña Fariña, J. C., 2005. La desambiguación de oraciones de relativo en gallego: Nueva evidencia de adjunción alta en lenguas romances. Psicológica, no. 26, pp. 243-260.
  16. Frazier, L., 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD Dissertation. University of Connecticut, USA.
  17. Frazier, L. and C. Clifton., 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  18. Gibson, E., 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, no. 68, pp. 1-6.10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
  19. Gibson, E, Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-González, E. and Hickok, G., 1996. Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, no. 59, pp. 23-59.10.1016/0010-0277(95)00687-7
  20. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., and Torrens, V., 1999. Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish. Memory & Cognition, no. 27, pp. 603-611.10.3758/BF03211554
  21. Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D. and Ko, K., 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 313-353.10.1515/cogl.2005.16.2.313
  22. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R. and Johnson, M., 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, no. 27, pp. 1411-1423.10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411
  23. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R. and Johnson, M., 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, no. 51, pp. 97-114.10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.003
  24. Grillo, N. and Costa, J., 2014. A novel argument for the Universality of Parsing principles. Cognition, no. 133, pp. 156-187.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019
  25. Grillo, N., Costa, J., Fernandes, B. and Santi, A., 2015. Highs and Lows in English Attachment. Cognition, no. 144, pp. 116-122.10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.018
  26. Grillo, N. and Moulton, K., 2016. Event Kinds and the Pseudo Relative. In: B. Prickett and C. Hammerly, eds. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society 2. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 11-20.
  27. Guasti, M. T., 1988. La pseudorelative et les phénomènes d’accord. Rivista Di Grammatica Generativa, no. 13, pp. 35-57.
  28. Gutiérrez-Ziardegi, E., Carreiras, M. and Laka, I., 2004. Who was on the balcony? Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in Basque and Spanish. Poster presented at the 17th CUNY Annual Conference on Language Processing. University of Maryland, USA, 25-27 March.
  29. Hemfort, B., Konieczny, L. and Scheepers, C., 1996. Syntactic and anaphoric processes in modifier attachment. Poster presented at the 9th CUNY Annual Conference on Language Processing. The City University of New York, USA, 21-23 March.
  30. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A. and Wooley, J. D., 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 228-238.10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228
  31. Kayne, R., 1975. French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  32. King, J. and Just, M., 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, no. 30, pp. 580-602.10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
  33. Lewis, S. and Phillips, C., 2015. Aligning Grammatical Theories and Language Processing Models. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, no. 44, pp. 27-46.10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z
  34. Lovrić, N., 2003. Implicit prosody in silent reading: Relative clause attachment in Croatian. PhD Dissertation. The City University of New York, USA.
  35. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F. and Zagar, D., 1990. Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences?. In: G. Flores d’Arcais and D. Balota, eds. Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 285-302.
  36. Mitchell, D. C. and Cuetos, F., 1991. The origin of parsing strategies. In: C. Smith, ed. Current issues in natural language processing. Austin, TX: University of Texas, pp. 1-12.
  37. Mitchell, D. C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S. and Swanepoel, P., 2000. Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of construal theory. In: A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller and J. Pynte, eds. Reading as a perceptual process. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 493-516.10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50023-1
  38. Moulton, K. and Grillo, N., 2015. Pseudo Relative: Big and Direct. In: T. Bui and D. Özyıldız, eds. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 2. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 193-202.
  39. Moulton, K. and Grillo, N., under review. Sorting out Pseudo-Relatives: Clausal Determiners and Mediated Agree. [Accessed 29 April 2018]. Available at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002738/current.pdf.
  40. Papadopoulou, D. and Clahsen, H., 2003. Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, no. 25, pp. 501-528.10.1017/S0272263103000214
  41. Pozniak, C., Hemforth, B., Haendler, Y., Santi, A. and Grillo, N., 2019. Seeing events vs. entities: The processing advantage of Pseudo Relatives over Relative Clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, no. 107, pp. 128-151.10.1016/j.jml.2019.04.001
  42. Rafel, J., 1999. La construcción pseudo-relativa en romance. Verba. Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, no. 26, pp. 165-192.
  43. Rizzi, L., 2000. Direct perception, government and thematic sharing. In: L. Rizzi, ed. Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London: Routledge, pp. 189-210.
  44. Santi, A., Grillo, N., Grodzinsky, Y. and Wagner, M., 2011. Planned production and self-paced reading of relative clause attachment. Paper presented at the 24th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Stanford University, USA, 24-26 March.
  45. Sekerina, I., 2002. The late closure principle vs. the balance principle: Evidence from on-line processing of ambiguous Russian sentences. In: P. Kosta and J. Frasek, eds. Current approaches to formal Slavic linguistics. Contributions of the 2nd European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 205-217.
  46. Sekerina, I., PetrovA, K. and Fernández. E., 2003. Relative clause attachment in Bulgarian. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. University of Ottawa, Canada.
  47. Shen, X., 2006. Late assignment of syntax theory: Evidence from Chinese and English. PhD Dissertation. University of Exeter, United Kingdom.
  48. Schmitt, C., 2000. Some Consequences of the Complement Analysis for Relative Clauses, Demonstratives and the Wrong Adjectives. In: A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder, eds. The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 309-348.10.1075/la.32.09sch
  49. Soares, A. P., Fraga, I., Comesaña, M. and Piñeiro, A., 2010. El papel de la animacidad en la resolución de ambigüedades sintácticas en portugués europeo: Evidencia en tareas de producción y comprensión. Psicothema, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 691-696.
Language: English
Page range: 15 - 44
Published on: Jun 22, 2020
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2020 Borja Alonso-Pascua, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.