Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 417–467 | Cite as

Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: a view from Mayan

  • Lauren Eby Clemens
  • Jessica Coon
  • Pedro Mateo Pedro
  • Adam Milton Morgan
  • Maria Polinsky
  • Gabrielle Tandet
  • Matthew Wagers
Article

Abstract

Researchers using different methods have converged on the result that subject relative clauses are easier to process than object relative clauses. Cross-linguistic evidence for the subject processing advantage (SPA) has come mostly from accusative languages, where the covariance of grammatical function and case prevents researchers from determining which of these two factors underlies the SPA. Languages with morphological ergativity allow for the separation of case and grammatical function, since the subject position is associated with two cases: absolutive (intransitive subjects) and ergative (transitive subjects). Prior experimental results on the processing of ergative languages suggest that grammatical function and surface case may be equally important in relative clause processing. On the one hand, as a syntactic subject, the ergative DP has a processing advantage over the absolutive object. On the other hand, the appearance of an ergative serves as a cue for the projection of the absolutive object, which gives processing preference to that object. This paper further tests these findings by examining the processing of relative clauses in Ch’ol and Q’anjob’al, two languages that mark ergativity via agreement on the predicate (head-marking). We address two main questions: (a) does the SPA hold in ergative languages? And (b) are case and agreement equally able to license grammatical functions, and if so, is this reflected in processing? With regard to (a), our results support the SPA, suggesting that it is present in both ergative and accusative languages. With respect to (b), we do not find evidence for a cueing effect associated with the ergative agreement marker. We conclude that dependent-marking is superior to head-marking in tracking grammatical function; in the absence of case cues, universal structural preferences such as the SPA become more pronounced. We also consider and reject a processing explanation for syntactic ergativity, according to which some languages categorically avoid A-bar movement of the ergative with a gap because it imposes a heavy processing load. Our results show that the processing of ergative gaps is not associated with greater cost than the processing of absolutive object gaps; this suggests that an explanation for syntactic ergativity should be sought outside processing.

Keywords

Ergativity Mayan Head-marking Dependent-marking Processing Relative clauses Subject preference 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper are listed in alphabetical order. The work reported here was supported in part by the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies (Harvard), the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (Harvard), the National Heritage Language Research Center (UCLA), the Center for Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland Grant Z903702, the National Science Foundation Grant BCS-1144223 to Maria Polinsky, and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship 2012136967 to Adam M. Morgan. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the United States Government, or the other agencies.

We would like to thank Judith Aissen, Caitlin Keenan, Janet Fodor, Annie Gagliardi, Itziar Laka, Beth Levin, Omer Preminger, Gregory Scontras, audiences at the 86th annual meeting of the LSA and WCCFL 31, three anonymous reviewers, and our editor Marcel den Dikken for helpful comments on this paper. Nicolás Arcos López, Olga Fedorova, Emily Raykhman, and Svetlana Tchistiakova deserve thanks for their help with technical aspects of this project. Finally, we are grateful to the following individuals and groups in Chiapas, Mexico and Santa Eulalia, Huehuetenango, Guatemala for their time, logistical support and hospitality: Diego Adalberto, Daniel Pedro Mateo, María Pedro, Pedro Gutiérrez Sánchez, the family of Nicolás Arcos López, Universidad Intercultural de Tabasco students and staff, Asociación de Mujeres Eulalenses para el Desarrollo Integral Pixan Konob’, the Municipality of Santa Eulalia, Huehuetenango, and the participants in our experiments.

References

  1. Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 63: 43–80. Google Scholar
  2. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75: 451–485. Google Scholar
  3. Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University. Google Scholar
  4. Altmann, Gabriel. 1997. The art of quantitative linguistics. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 4: 13–22. Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. On representations in morphology: Case marking, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2: 157–218. Google Scholar
  6. Aoshima, Sachiko, Colin Phillips, and Amy Weinberg. 2004. Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 23–54. Google Scholar
  7. Arozamena, Vanesa. 2010. The interaction between orality and literacy in the Basque Country. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Google Scholar
  8. Arregi, Karlos, and Gainko Molina-Azaola. 2004. Restructuring in Basque and the theory of agreement. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), eds. Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez, and Benjamin Schmeiser, Vol. 23, 43–56. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  9. Austin, Jennifer. 2007. Grammatical interference and the acquisition of ergative case in bilingual children learning Basque and Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10: 315–331. Google Scholar
  10. Ayres, Glenn. 1983. The antipassive “Voice” in Ixil. International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 20–45. Google Scholar
  11. Baayen, R. Harald, and Petar Milin. 2010. Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3: 12–28. Google Scholar
  12. Bader, Markus, and Jana Häussler. 2009. Resolving number ambiguities during language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 61: 352–373. Google Scholar
  13. Bailyn, John. 2004. Generalized inversion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 1–49. Google Scholar
  14. Betancort, Moises, Manuel Carreiras, and Patrick Sturt. 2009. The processing of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 1915–1929. Google Scholar
  15. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Bornkessel, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky. 2006. Generalized semantic roles and syntactic templates: A new framework for language comprehension. In Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives, eds. Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie, and Angela D. Friederici, 327–353. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  17. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky. 2009. The role of prominence information in real time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 19–58. Google Scholar
  18. Bricker, Victoria R. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 83–127. Google Scholar
  19. Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  20. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  21. Campana, Mark. 1992. A Movement theory of ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, Montreal, McGill University, Canada. Google Scholar
  22. Caplan, David, Gloria S. Waters, and Nancy Hildebrandt. 1997. Determinants of sentence comprehension in aphasic patients in sentence-picture matching tasks. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40: 542–555. Google Scholar
  23. Carreiras, Manuel, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia, Marta Vergara, Irene de la Cruz-Pavía, and Itziar Laka. 2010. Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition 115: 79–92. Google Scholar
  24. Chen, Evan, Edward Gibson, and Florian Wolf. 2005. Online syntactic storage costs in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 52: 144–169. Google Scholar
  25. Choudhary, Kamal Kumar, Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2009. N400 as a correlate of interpretively-relevant linguistic rules: Evidence from Hindi. Neuropsychologia 47: 3012–3022. Google Scholar
  26. Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, ed. Winfred P. Lehmann, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press. Google Scholar
  27. Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. In press. The role of case in A-Bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation. Google Scholar
  28. Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Coon, Jessica, and Maayan Adar. 2013. Ergativity. In Oxford bibliographies online: Linguistics. Google Scholar
  30. Craig, Collette Grinevald. 1979. The antipassive and Jacaltec. In Papers in Mayan linguistics, ed. Martin Laura, Vol. 7, 139–164. Baltimore: Lucas Brothers. Google Scholar
  31. Dąbrowska, Ewa, and James Street. 2006. Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences 28: 604–615. Google Scholar
  32. De Vincenzi, Marica. 1991. Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: The minimal chain principle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  33. Díaz, Begoña, Núria Sebastián-Gallés, Kepa Erdocia, Jutta L. Mueller, and Itziar Laka. 2011. On the cross-linguistic validity of electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic processing: A study of case and agreement violations in Basque. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24: 357–373. Google Scholar
  34. Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. Google Scholar
  35. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  36. DuBois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855. Google Scholar
  37. Duffy, Susan, Robin K. Morris, and Keith Rayner. 1988. Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 429–446. Google Scholar
  38. England, Nora. 1991. Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 57: 446–486. Google Scholar
  39. Erdocia, Kepa, Itziar Laka, Anna Mestres-Missé, and Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells. 2009. Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque. Brain and Language 109: 1–17. Google Scholar
  40. Fanselow, Gisbert, and Stefan Frisch. 2006. Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Gradience in grammar, eds. Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Matthias Schlesewsky, and Rene Vogel, 291–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  41. Fodor, Janet, and Atsu Inoue. 2000a. Garden path reanalysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort. In Cross-linguistic perspectives in language processing, eds. Marica DiVincenzi and Vincenzo Lombardo, 21–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  42. Fodor, Janet, and Atsu Inoue. 2000b. Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 25–36. Google Scholar
  43. Frazier, Lyn, Jeremy Pacht, and Keith Rayner. 1999. Taking on semantic commitments, II: Collective versus distributive readings. Cognition 70: 87–104. Google Scholar
  44. Frazier, Lyn, and Keith Rayner. 1987. Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 39A: 657–673. Google Scholar
  45. Frazier, Lyn, and Keith Rayner. 1990. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meaning vs. multiple sense. Journal of Memory and Language 29: 181–200. Google Scholar
  46. French, Brigittine. 2010. Maya ethnolinguistic identity: Violence, cultural rights, and modernity in highland Guatemala. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Google Scholar
  47. Gagliardi, Anne. 2012. Input and intake in language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  48. Gathercole, Susan E., Susan J. Pickering, Camilla Knight, and Zoe Stegmann. 2004. Working memory skills and educational attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18: 1–16. Google Scholar
  49. Gennari, Silvia, and Maryellen MacDonald. 2008. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 161–187. Google Scholar
  50. Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76. Google Scholar
  51. Gibson, Edward, and Neal J. Perlmutter. 1998. Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2: 262–268. Google Scholar
  52. Gibson, Edward, and H.-H. Iris Wu. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(1–2): 125–155. Google Scholar
  53. Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick, and Marcus Johnson. 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 97–114. Google Scholar
  54. Grodner, Dan, and Edward Gibson. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science 29: 261–291. Google Scholar
  55. Grenoble, Lenore. 2003. Language policy in the Soviet Union. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  56. Grüter, Theres. 2005. Comprehension and production of French object clitics by child second language learners and children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 26: 363–391. Google Scholar
  57. Gutierrez-Mangado, M. Juncal. 2011. Children’s comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: The case of Basque. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 18: 176–201. Google Scholar
  58. Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), Vol. 2, 159–166. Google Scholar
  59. Hale, John. 2003. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 101–123. Google Scholar
  60. Hale, John. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30: 609–642. Google Scholar
  61. Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75: 244–285. Google Scholar
  62. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity of grammars. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  63. Hewitt, George. 1979. The relative clause in Abkhaz (Abzui dialect). Lingua 47: 151–188. Google Scholar
  64. Hewitt, George B. 2005. Georgian: A learner’s grammar. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  65. Holbrock, Mary Jo. 2004. Que no olviden su cultura, y tambien el idioma: A case study of Mayan literacy revival in Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Google Scholar
  66. Hsiao, Franny, and Edward Gibson. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90: 3–27. Google Scholar
  67. Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, eds. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  68. Irujo Ametzaga, Xabier I. 2009. Introduction to a political history of the Basque language and literature. Tinta 8(2): 31–69. Google Scholar
  69. Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194. Google Scholar
  70. Jurka, Johannes. 2010. The importance of being a complement: CED effects revisited. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  71. Kallestinova, Elena. 2007. Aspects of word order in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa. Google Scholar
  72. Kazenin, Konstantin. 1994. Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienfosrschungen (STUF) 47: 78–98. Google Scholar
  73. Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99. Google Scholar
  74. Kirkwood, Michael, ed. 1990. Language planning in the Soviet Union. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Google Scholar
  75. Kwon, Nayoung, Maria Polinsky, and Robert Kluender. 2006. Subject preference in Korean. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), eds. Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon, Vol. 25, 1–14. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  76. Kwon, Nayoung, Yoonhyoung Lee, Peter C. Gordon, Robert Kluender, and Maria Polinsky. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86: 546–582. Google Scholar
  77. Laka, Itziar. 2006. On the nature of case in Basque: Structural or inherent? In Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Jan Koster, Riny Huybregts, and Ursula Kleinhenz, 374–382. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  78. Laka, Itziar, Maria Santesteban, Kepa Erdocia, and Anton Zawiszewski. 2012. The Basque language in the minds of native and non-native bilinguals. In The challenge of a bilingual society in the Basque Country, eds. Pello Salaburu and Xabier Alberdi. Vol. 9 of Current research series, 157–172. Reno: University of Nevada. Google Scholar
  79. Larsen, Tomas W., and William M. Norman. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. In Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. Frans Plank, 347–370. London: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  80. Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–1177. Google Scholar
  81. Levy, Roger, Evelina Fedorenko, and Edward Gibson. 2013. The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 69: 461–495. Google Scholar
  82. Lewis, Richard L., Shravan Vasishth, and Julie A. Van Dyke. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 44–54. Google Scholar
  83. Lin, Chien-Jer Charles, and Thomas G. Bever. 2006. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), eds. Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon, Vol. 25, 254–260. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  84. Lin, Y. Brian, and Susan M. Garnsey. 2011. Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In Processing and producing head-final structures, eds. Hiroko Yamashita, Yuki Hirose, and Jerome L. Packard, 241–276. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  85. Longhurst, Edward. 2006. ExBuilder. http://wiki.bcs.rochester.edu/TanenhausLab/ExBuilder.
  86. MacDonald, Maryellen C., and Morten H. Christiansen. 2002. Reassessing working memory: A reply to Just and Carpenter and Waters and Caplan. Psychological Review 109: 35–54. Google Scholar
  87. Mallinson, Graham, and Barry J. Blake. 1981. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Google Scholar
  88. Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  89. Marantz, Alec. 1984. Grammatical relations. Cambridge: Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Google Scholar
  90. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), eds. G. Westphal, B. Ao, and H.-R. Chae, Vol. 91, 234–253. Ithaca: Cornell University. Google Scholar
  91. Martí, Fèlix. 2005. Words and worlds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar
  92. Mateo-Toledo, B’alam Eladio. 2003. Ergatividad Mixta en Q’anjobal (Maya): Un reanálisis. In Conference of Indigenous Language of Latin America (CILLA), Vol. 1. Google Scholar
  93. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2009. Nominalization in Q’anjob’al Maya. In Kansas working papers in linguistics, eds. Stephanie Lux and Pedro Mateo Pedro, Vol. 31, 46–63. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Google Scholar
  94. Mitchell, Don, Fernando Cuetos, Martin M. B. Corley, and Marc Brysbaert. 1995. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24: 469–488. Google Scholar
  95. Miyamoto, Edson T., and Michiko Nakamura. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), eds. Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimura, Vol. 22, 342–355. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  96. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1974. Object-verb agreement. Working Papers on Language Universals 15: 25–140. Google Scholar
  97. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45: 233–279. Google Scholar
  98. Nevins, Andrew, Brian Dillon, Shiti Malhotra, and Colin Phillips. 2007. The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research 1164: 81–94. Google Scholar
  99. Nevins, Andrew, and Karlos Arregi. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spell out. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  100. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1): 56–119. Google Scholar
  101. O’Grady, William. 1997. Syntactic development. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  102. O’Grady, William. 2011. Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function, ed. Evan Kidd, 13–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  103. Pascual, Adán F. 2007. Transitividad y dependencia sintáctica y discursiva en Q’anjob’al. Master’s thesis, CIESAS, México. Google Scholar
  104. Polinsky, Maria. 2011. Reanalysis in adult heritage language: A case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33: 305–328. Google Scholar
  105. Polinsky, Maria. 2013. A tale of two ergatives. MS, Harvard University. Google Scholar
  106. Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gómez Gallo, Peter Graff, and Ekaterina Kravtchenko. 2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122: 267–277. Google Scholar
  107. Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gómez Gallo, Peter Graff, Ekaterina Kravtchenko, Adam M. Morgan, and Anne Sturgeon. 2013. Subject islands are different. In Experimental syntax and island effects, eds. Jon Sprouse and Norbert Hornstein, 286–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  108. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2014. Left edge topics in Russian and the processing of anaphoric dependencies. Journal of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  109. Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic-doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666. Google Scholar
  110. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  111. Preminger, Omer. 2012. The absence of an implicit object in unergatives: New and old evidence from Basque. Lingua 122: 278–288. Google Scholar
  112. Ratcliff, Roger. 1993. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin 114: 510–532. Google Scholar
  113. Rebuschi, Georges. 2009. Basque correlatives and their kin in the history of Northern Basque. In Correlatives cross-linguistically, ed. Anikó Lipták, 81–130. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  114. Režać, Milan, Pablo Albizu, and Ricardo Etxepare. 2012. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Ms., SFL/CNRS. Google Scholar
  115. Roland, Douglas, Frederic Dick, and Jeffrey L. Elman. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 348–379. Google Scholar
  116. Rosenthal, Robert, and Ralph L. Rosnow. 2009. Artifacts in behavioral research. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  117. San Martin, Itziar. 2007. The complementary distribution between PRO and lexical subjects. In Anuario del Seminario de Filologia Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”, Vol. 41, 139–174. Google Scholar
  118. Schwarz, Florian. 2007. Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics 24: 373–416. Google Scholar
  119. Shapiro, Lew, Edgar Zurif, and Jane Grimshaw. 1987. Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition 27: 219–246. Google Scholar
  120. Seiter, William. 1980. Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  121. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund. (Reprinted 1992 by University of Iceland, Reykjavík.) Google Scholar
  122. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46. Google Scholar
  123. Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978. The Mayan Antipassive: Some facts and fictions. In Papers in Mayan linguistics, ed. Nora England, 169–187. Columbia: University of Missouri. Google Scholar
  124. Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 501–570. Google Scholar
  125. Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A-Bar Partition in Derivation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  126. Tanenhaus, Michael K., and John C. Trueswell. 1995. Sentence comprehension. In Handbook of cognition and perception, eds. Joanne Miller and Peter Eimas. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  127. Tonhauser, Judith. 2007. Agent focus and voice in Yucatec Maya. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), Vol. 39, 540–558. Google Scholar
  128. Townsend, David J., and Thomas Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  129. Trask, Robert Lawrence. 2002. Ergativity and accusativity in Basque. In The nominative and accusative and their counterparts, eds. Kristin Davidse and Beatrice Lamiroy, 265–284. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  130. Traxler, Matthew J., Robin K. Moris, and Rachel E. Seely. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 69–90. Google Scholar
  131. Ueno, Mieko, and Susan M. Garnsey. 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 646–688. Google Scholar
  132. Valenzuela, Pilar. 2002. Relativization in Shipibo-Konibo: A typologically-oriented study. München: Lincom Europa. Google Scholar
  133. Vázquez Álvarez, Juan. 2011. A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Google Scholar
  134. Wagers, Matthew, and Colin Phillips. 2009. Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics 45: 395–433. Google Scholar
  135. Wanner, Eric, and Michael Maratsos. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. In Linguistic theory and psychological reality, eds. Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A. Miller, 119–161. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  136. Wassenaar, Marlies, and Peter Hagoort. 2007. Thematic role assignment in patients with Broca’s aphasia: Sentence-picture matching electrified. Neuropsychologia 45: 716–740. Google Scholar
  137. Weissenborn, Juergen, Michele Kail, and Angela Friederici. 1990. Language-particular or language-independent factors in acquisition? Children’s comprehension of object pronouns in Dutch, French and German. First Language 10: 141–166. Google Scholar
  138. Weist, Richard M. 1991. Spatial and temporal location in child language. First Language 11: 253–267. Google Scholar
  139. Witzel, Naoko, Jeffrey Witzel, and Kenneth Forster. 2012. Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 41: 105–128. Google Scholar
  140. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483. Google Scholar
  141. Zavala, Roberto. 2007. Inversion and obviation in Mesoamerica. In Endangered languages, eds. Peter Austin and Andrew Simpson. Vol. 14 of Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 267–306. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Google Scholar
  142. Zawiszewski, Adam, Eva Gutiérrez, Beatriz Fernández, and Itziar Laka. 2011. Language distance and non-native syntactic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 400–411. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Eby Clemens
    • 1
  • Jessica Coon
    • 2
  • Pedro Mateo Pedro
    • 1
  • Adam Milton Morgan
    • 3
  • Maria Polinsky
    • 1
  • Gabrielle Tandet
    • 1
  • Matthew Wagers
    • 3
  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.University of California at Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations