Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

No. 38 (2021)
Continuous publication

Language and communication

Relative Clauses with Double Nominal Antecedent in Spanish: An Experimental Review

https://doi.org/10.19053/0121053X.n38.2021.13367

Published 2021-10-21

  • Noelia Ayelén Stetie

Noelia Ayelén Stetie
CONICET/UBA

Abstract

A recurrent assumption in psycholinguistics is that certain universal principles of computational economy guide the structural decisions made during sentence
processing. The first study conducted in Spanish on attachment decisions (Cuetos & Mitchell, 1988) questioned the existence of such principles by presenting evidence that Spanish speakers prefer to use an early closure or high attachment strategy to solve the
interpretation of sentences with relative clauses with two potential antecedents. Since then, several studies have been conducted that provide contradictory evidence. In this paper, we present a comprehensive and critical review of the research on Spanish, examining the various methodologies used and the influence of different factors on syntactic processing. The implications of these findings for models of sentence processing are also discussed, and the possibility of considering universal principles is debated.

Keywords

language comprehension, syntactic parsing, relative clauses

PDF (Español)

References

  1. Acuña-Farina, C., Fraga, I., García-Orza, J. & Piñeiro-Barreiro, A. (2009). Animacy in the Adjunction of Spanish RCs to Complex NPs. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(8), 1137-1165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802622824
  2. Aguilar, M., Ferré, P., Gavilán, J. M., Hinojosa, J. A. & Demestre, J. (2021). The Actress Was on the Balcony, After All: Eye-Tracking Locality and PR-Availability Effects in Spanish. Cognition, 211, 104624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104624
  3. Aguilar, M. & Grillo, N. (2021). Spanish Is not Different: On the Universality of Minimal Structure and Locality Principles. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1251
  4. Alonso-Pascua, B. (2020). New Evidence on the Pseudorelative-First Hypothesis: Spanish Attachment Preferences Revisited. Topics in Linguistics, 21(1), 15- 44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2020-0002
  5. Arancibia-Gutiérrez, B., Bizama-Muñoz, M. & Sáez-Carrillo, K. (2015). Preferencias de adjunción sintáctica de cláusulas de relativo en escolares. Estudios Filológicos, (55), 7-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0071-17132015000100001
  6. Bezerra, G. B. (2019). The Influence of Referentiality, Definiteness, and “Preposition+Determiner” Contraction on Relative Clause Processing. Diacrítica, 33(2),116-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21814/diacritica.419
  7. Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken Agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45- 93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7
  8. Branco-Moreno, D. (2014). The Influence of Pseudo-Relatives on Attachment Preferences in Spanish. (Tesis inédita de Maestría). CUNY, New York, USA.
  9. Carreiras, M. (1992). Estrategias de análisis sintáctico en el procesamiento de frases: cierre temprano versus cierre tardío. Cognitiva, 4(1), 3-27.
  10. Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (1993). Relative Clause Interpretation Preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353-372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099303600401
  11. Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (1999). Another Word on Parsing Relative Clauses: Eyetracking Evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 826-833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198535
  12. Carreiras, M., Salillas, E. & Barber, H. (2004). Event-Related Potentials Elicited During Parsing of Ambiguous Relative Clauses in Spanish. Cognitive Brain Research, 20(1), 98-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.01.009
  13. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.
  14. Cuetos, F. & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-Linguistic Differences in Parsing: Restrictions on the Use of the Late Closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2
  15. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C. & Corley, M. M. (1996). Parsing in Different Languages. In M. Carreiras, N. Sebastián-Gallés & J. García-Albea (eds.). Language Processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Psychology Press.
  16. De Baecke, C., Brysbaert, M. & Desmet, T. (2000, Sept.). The Importance of Structural and Non-
  17. Structural Variables in Modifier Attachment: A Corpus Study in Dutch. In Poster presented at AMLaP. Leiden, Holland.
  18. Deevy, P. L. (2000). Agreement checking in comprehension: Evidence from relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 69-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005124523808
  19. De La Cruz-Pavía, I. (2010). The Influence of Prosody in the Processing of Ambiguous Rcs: A Study with Spanish Monolinguals and Basque-Spanish Bilinguals from the Basque Country. Interlingüística, 20, 1-12.
  20. De La Cruz-Pavía, I. & Elordieta, G. (2015). Prosodic Phrasing of Relative Clauses with Two Possible Antecedents in Spanish: A Comparison of Spanish Native Speakers and L1 Basque Bilingual Speakers. Folia Linguistica, 49(1), 185-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0006
  21. De Vincenzi, M. & Job, R. (1993). Some Observations on the Universality of the Late- Closure Strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 189-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067830
  22. Dussias, P. & Sagarra, N. (2007). The Effect of Exposure on Syntactic Parsing in Spanish–English Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002847
  23. Fernández, E. (2003). Bilingual Sentence Processing. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.29
  24. Fernández, E. (2005). The Prosody Produced by Spanish-English Bilinguals: A Preliminary Investigation and Implications for Sentence Processing. Revista da ABRALIN, 4(1), 109-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/rabl.v4i1/2.52655
  25. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic Disambiguation in Silent Reading. North East Linguistics Society, 32, 113-132.
  26. Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. MIT Press.
  27. Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The Sausage Machine: A New Two-Stage Parsing Model. Cognition, 6(4), 291-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
  28. Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and Correcting Errors During Sentence Comprehension: Eye Movements in the Analysis of Structurally Ambiguous Sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
  29. Fromont, L. A., Soto-Faraco, S. & Biau, E. (2017). Searching High and Low: Prosodic Breaks Disambiguate Relative Clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00096
  30. García-Orza, J., Fraga, I., Teijido, M. & Acuña, J. C. (2000, Sept.). High Attachment Preferences in Galician Relative Clauses: Preliminary Data. In Poster Presented at AMLaP. Leiden, Holland.
  31. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-González, E. & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency Preference in the Human Sentence Processing Mechanism. Cognition, 59(1), 23-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00687-7
  32. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J. & Torrens, V. (1999). Recency and Lexical Preferences in DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211554
  33. Spanish. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 603-611.
  34. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument Structure and Preferences in the Processing of Spanish and English Complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00636-Y
  35. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
  36. Grillo, N. & Costa, J. (2014). A Novel Argument for the Universality of Parsing Principles. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019
  37. Cognition, 133(1), 156-187.
  38. Hemforth, B., Fernández, S., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L. & Walter, M. (2015).Relative Clause Attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of Position and Length. Lingua, 166, 43-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.010
  39. Igoa, J. M., Carreiras, M. & Meseguer, E. (1998). A Study on Late Closure in Spanish: Principle-Grounded vs. Frequency-Based Accounts of Attachment Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 51(3), 561- 592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713755775
  40. Jegerski, J., Keating, G. D. & VanPatten, B. (2014). On-line Relative Clause Attachment Strategy in Heritage Speakers of Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(3), 254-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914552288
  41. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E. & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 As an Index of Syntactic
  42. Integration Difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159-201.
  43. Karimi, H. & Ferreira, F. (2015). Good-Enough Linguistic Representations and Online Cognitive Equilibrium in Language Processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013-1040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
  44. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
  45. Maia, M., Fernández, E. M., Costa, A. & Lourenço-Gomes, M. D. C. (2007). Early and Late Preferences in Relative Clause Attachment in Spanish and Portuguese.Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 5/6, 227-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.151
  46. Maia, M. & Maia, J. (2005). A compreensão de orações relativas por falantes monolíngües e bilíngües de português e de inglês. En M. Maia & I. Finger (org). Processamento da linguagem (pp. 163-178). Educat.
  47. McRae, K. & Matsuki, K. (2013). Constraint-Based Models of Sentence Processing. InR. Van Gompel (ed.) Sentence Processing (pp. 51-77). Psychology Press. Mitchell, D. C. & Cuetos, F. (1991). The Origins of Parsing Strategies. Current Issues in Natural Language Processing, 1-12.
  48. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-Based Models of Human Parsing: Evidence for the Use of Coarse-Grained (Nonlexical) Statistical Records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 469-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143162
  49. Miyamoto, E. T. (1999). Relative Clause Processing in Brazilian Portuguese and Japanese. (Tesis inédita de Doctorado). MIT, Cambridge, Estados Unidos. Moulton, K. & Grillo, A. (2014). Pseudo Relatives: Big but Transparent. In 45th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. York.
  50. Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-Related Brain Potentials Elicited by Syntactic Anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785-806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
  51. Piñeiro-Barreiro, A. (2006). Estrategias de adjunción ante cláusulas de relativo en castellano: el papel de las variables léxicas en medidas on-line y de corpus. (Tesina inédita de Licenciatura). Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, España.
  52. Piñeiro-Barreiro, A. (2011). El papel de las variables léxico-semánticas en la desambiguación de cláusulas de relativo con doble antecedente: animacidad, valencia afectiva y activación emocional. (Tesis inédita de Doctorado) Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, España.
  53. Rohde, H., Levy, R. & Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating Explanations in Relative Clause Processing. Cognition, 118(3), 339-358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.016
  54. Ribeiro, A. J. (2005). Late closure em parsing no português do Brasil. En M. Maia & I. Finger (org). Processamento da linguagem (pp. 51-70). Educat.
  55. Sánchez, M. E., Jaichenco, V. & Sevilla, Y. (2018). El procesamiento del género y el número en la producción de la concordancia del español. Interdisciplinaria, 35(2), 459-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2018.35.2.13
  56. Sekerina, I. A., Fernández, E. M. & Petrova, K. A. (2004). Relative Clause Attachment in Bulgarian. In The Proceedings of the 12th Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Ottawa Meeting (pp. 375-394).
  57. Soares, A. P., Oliveira, H., Comesaña, M. & Demestre, J. (2014). Resolução de ambiguidades sintácticas em orações relativas com duplo antecedente: O papel do número. Em Poster presentado en el Noveno Encontro da Associação Portuguesa de Psicologia Experimental (APPE), Covilhã, University of Beira Interior, Portugal.
  58. Stetie, N. A. (2021). Modelos de procesamiento sintáctico y sus implicaciones para el estudio del lenguaje. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 29(3), 2117-2162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.29.3.2117-1262
  59. Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z. & Ferreira, F. (2007). The Role of Working Memory in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: A Psychometric Approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64
  60. Teira, C. & Igoa, J. M. (2007). Relaciones entre la prosodia y la sintaxis en el procesamiento de oraciones. Anuario de Psicología, 38(1), 45-69.
  61. Tena-Dávalos, J. & Pérez-Álvarez, B. E. (2017). Estrategias de interpretación de oraciones relativas con doble antecedente en español. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 65(1), 3-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v65i1.2827
  62. Townsend, D. J. & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6184.001.0001
  63. Vergara, D. & Socarrás, G. (2021). Auditory Processing of Gender Agreement across Relative Clauses by Spanish Heritage Speakers. Languages, 6(1), 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010008
  64. Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F. & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement Attraction in Comprehension:
  65. Representations and Processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206-237.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

<< < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.