Abstract
Studies in several languages have shown that subject-relative clauses are easier to process than object-relative clauses. Mak, Vonk, and Schriefers (2006) have proposed the topichood hypothesis to account for the preference for subject-relative clauses. This hypothesis claims that the entity in the relative clause that is most topicworthy will be chosen as the subject. By default, the antecedent of the relative clause will be chosen as the subject of the relative clause, because it is the topic of the relative clause. However, when the noun phrase (NP) in the relative clause is also topicworthy, the preference for the antecedent to be the subject will disappear. This was confirmed in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we tested relative clauses with a personal pronoun in the relative clause. We obtained a preference for object-relative clauses, in line with the assumption that personal pronouns refer to a discourse topic and are thus topicworthy. In Experiment 2, the discourse status of the NP in the relative clause was manipulated; either it was not present in the preceding context, or it was the discourse topic. The experiment showed that when the NP in the relative clause refers to the discourse topic, the difficulty of object-relative clauses is reduced, in comparison with relative clauses with an NP that is new in the discourse, even in the absence of any explicit cue in the relative clause itself. The experiments show that discourse factors guide processing at the sentence level.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297–316.
Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 328–337.
Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., & Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology, 47, 193–221.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1411–1423.
Hoeks, J. C. J., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). Processing coordinated structures in context: The effect of topic-structure on ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 99–119.
Holmes, V. M., & O’Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 417–430.
Kaan, E. (2001). Effects of NP type on the resolution of word-order ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 529–547.
King, J. [W.], & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 580–602.
King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word-and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395.
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy: A reexamination of relativization phenomena. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 417–444). New York: Academic Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1988). There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 319–339). Berkeley: University of California, Department of Linguistics.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language, 53, 152–168.
MacWhinney, B. (1998). The emergence of language from embodiment. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 213–256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B., & Pléh, C. (1988). The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition, 29, 95–141.
Mak, W. M. (2001). Processing relative clauses: Effects of pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 50–68.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Processing relative clauses in Dutch: When rocks crush hikers. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 466–490.
Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 23, 477–494.
Mitchell, D. C., Corley, M. M. B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discoursebased proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 69–88.
Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 785–794.
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 499–520.
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 69–90.
Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 204–224.
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from eventrelated brain potentials. Journal of Memory & Language, 41, 147–182.
van Valin, R. D., Jr., & Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for “effector”: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 289–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mak, W.M., Vonk, W. & Schriefers, H. Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition 36, 170–181 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.170
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.170