TY - JOUR
T1 - The processing of pronominal relative clauses
T2 - Evidence from eye movements
AU - Roland, Douglas
AU - Mauner, Gail
AU - Hirose, Yuki
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Stefani Foraker, Francis Mollica, and Rachael Steiner and the members of the Psycholinguistics Laboratory of the University at Buffalo. The data files and R code used for the analyses reported in this paper are available at https://osf.io/4rq3m/.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Relative clauses have played a key role in distinguishing between different theories of language comprehension. A reversal in processing costs between full NP and pronominal relative clauses reported by Reali and Christiansen (2007) has been used to argue for expectation-based theories of comprehension (e.g., Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008), and against memory-based theories of comprehension (e.g., Gibson, 1998, 2000; Gordon, Hendrick, & Johnson, 2001; Lewis, Vasishth, & Van Dyke, 2006). We present results relying on eye-movements during reading, in conjunction with modeling of differences between self-paced reading and eye movement data, to argue that the results observed by Reali and Christiansen and others are due to the self-paced reading paradigm, and do not reflect an actual reversal in processing costs. Overall, our results suggest that a combination of memory-based factors and spillover explains the pattern of reading times observed in various relative clause experiments such as those in Reali and Christiansen (2007), and that while comprehenders’ expectations undeniably play a role in language comprehension, the role may be less dramatic than is suggested by previous studies.
AB - Relative clauses have played a key role in distinguishing between different theories of language comprehension. A reversal in processing costs between full NP and pronominal relative clauses reported by Reali and Christiansen (2007) has been used to argue for expectation-based theories of comprehension (e.g., Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008), and against memory-based theories of comprehension (e.g., Gibson, 1998, 2000; Gordon, Hendrick, & Johnson, 2001; Lewis, Vasishth, & Van Dyke, 2006). We present results relying on eye-movements during reading, in conjunction with modeling of differences between self-paced reading and eye movement data, to argue that the results observed by Reali and Christiansen and others are due to the self-paced reading paradigm, and do not reflect an actual reversal in processing costs. Overall, our results suggest that a combination of memory-based factors and spillover explains the pattern of reading times observed in various relative clause experiments such as those in Reali and Christiansen (2007), and that while comprehenders’ expectations undeniably play a role in language comprehension, the role may be less dramatic than is suggested by previous studies.
KW - English
KW - Eye tracking
KW - Language comprehension
KW - Relative clause
KW - Sentence processing
KW - Spillover
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105322138&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85105322138&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104244
DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104244
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85105322138
SN - 0749-596X
VL - 119
JO - Journal of Memory and Language
JF - Journal of Memory and Language
M1 - 104244
ER -