Effects of Animacy and Noun-Phrase Relatedness on the Processing of Complex Sentences

Abstract

Previous work has suggested that syntactically complex object-extracted relative clauses are easier to process when the head noun phrase (NP1) is inanimate and the embedded noun phrase (NP2) is animate compared to the reverse animacy configuration, with differences in processing difficulty beginning as early as NP2 (e.g., The article that the senator… versus The senator that the article…). Two eye-tracking-while-reading experiments were conducted to better understand the source of this effect. Experiment 1 showed that having an inanimate NP1 facilitated processing even when NP2 was held constant. Experiment 2 manipulated both animacy of NP1 and the degree of semantic relatedness between the critical NPs. When NP1 and NP2 were paired arbitrarily, the early animacy effect emerged at NP2. When NP1 and NP2 were semantically related, this effect disappeared, with effects of NP1 animacy emerging in later processing stages for both the Related and Arbitrary conditions. The results indicate that differences in the animacy of NP1 influence early processing of complex sentences only when the critical NPs share no meaningful relationship. Keywordseye-movements; relative clauses; animacy; complex sentences Readers rely on multiple sources of linguistic information in order to arrive at the correct interpretation of a sentence. A central goal of psycholinguistics is to understand how readers use the information available to them to facilitate processing and whether some linguistic cues might be relied on more heavily than others. In particular, this paper examines how semantic properties of the noun phrases (NPs) of a sentence might influence the processing of syntactically complex sentences. Studies of syntactic complexity often draw a comparison between subject-extracted and object-extracted relative clauses (RCs). In a subject-extracted RC (SRC), as in (1a), the head NP serves as the subject of the action being described in the RC, as well as the subject of the action described in the main clause. In contrast, the head NP of an object-extracted RC (ORC), as in (1b), serves as the object of the action being described in the RC.(1a) The journalist that accused the senator caused a scandal after the election. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript (1b) The journalist that the senator accused caused a scandal after the election.Although these two sentences contain the exact same words and differ only in word order, ORCs are more difficult to process than SRCs-a standard finding that has been reported using many different paradigms (e.g., Caplan, Alpert, & Waters, 1998;Caramazza & Zurif, 1976;Ford, 1983;Holmes & O'Regan, 1981;Just, Carpenter, Keller, Eddy, & Thulborn, 1996; Wanner & Maratos, 1978).Recent work has identified a variety of lexical, semantic, and pragmatic factors that moderate the ORC-SRC asymmetry (e.g., Gennari & MacDonald, 2008;Gordon, Hendrick, & Johnson, 2001, 2004Gordon, Hendrick, Johnson, & Lee, 2006;Johnson, Lowder, & Gordon, 2011;King & Just, 1991;Traxler, Morr...

Linguistic syncopation: Meter-syntax alignment affects sentence comprehension and sensorimotor synchronization

“…The effect of whether the comprehension probe targeted the main or relative clause was also replicated. While not theoretically relevant to meter-syntax alignment, this effect appears to be strong and robust at least within the current paradigm and from what we can gather, surprisingly few studies have addressed this topic (Lowder & Gordon, 2014;Newman et al, 2009). Unlike experiment 1, we additionally had participants tap their finger in time with the metrical beat.…”

Relative Clause Effects at the Matrix Verb Depend on Type of Intervening Material

“…Although many previous studies have reported ORC‐SRC effects at the matrix verb (e.g., Gordon et al., 2001, 2004, 2006; Johnson et al., 2011; King & Just, 1991; Lowder & Gordon, 2012, 2014, 2016; Traxler et al., 2002, 2005; cf. Staub, 2010), these experiments have virtually always positioned the matrix verb immediately after the RC, thus making it difficult to determine whether effects at the matrix verb reflect memory‐retrieval processes, as has been argued (for a review, see Gordon & Lowder, 2012), or spillover effects from the RC.…”

“…A cleaner comparison can be found at the matrix verb, where the two structures are once again identical. Indeed, many previous experiments have found evidence that ORCs are more difficult to process than SRCs at the matrix verb (e.g., Gordon et al., 2001, 2004, 2006; Johnson et al., 2011; King & Just, 1991; Lowder & Gordon, 2012, 2014, 2016; Traxler, Morris, & Seely, 2002; Traxler, Williams, Blozis, & Morris, 2005; cf. Staub, 2010).…”