Abstract
AbstractThe study tested how the Recency Preference and Predicate Proximity model (Gibson et al. in Cognition 59(1):23–59, 1996, https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2) plays out by examining the attachment preferences of native Russian speakers when processing locally ambiguous participial relative clause sentences with three potential NP attachment sites in Russian. Using a self-paced reading task, reading times and noun phrase selection responses were collected. Results showed significantly shorter reading times at the disambiguating region and higher accuracy rate of selection in the high-attaching condition than in the middle- and low-attaching conditions. No significant differences were found between the middle- and low-attaching conditions. We argue that Predicate Proximity is a much stronger factor than Recency Preference in Russian.
Funder
The Education University of Hong Kong
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference33 articles.
1. Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavía, I., & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.012
2. Chernova, D., & Chernigovskaya, T. V. (2015). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: New evidence from a morphologically rich language. In G. Airenti, B. G. Bara, & G. Sandini (Eds.), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific joint conference on cognitive science (pp. 129–133). RWTH Aachen University. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0017.pdf
3. Chernova, D., & Prokopenya, V. (2016). Contextual predictions and syntactic analysis: the case of ambiguity resolution. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Proceedings of 7th tutorial and research workshop on experimental linguistics (ExLing 2016) (pp. 55–58). Saint Petersburg State University, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2016/07/0010/000269
4. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2