A normative study and an eye-tracking experiment investigated the influence of animacy on the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish. The results showed that object relative clauses caused more difficulty than subject relative clauses, but that animacy modulated this preference. The overall pattern was similar to findings in other languages. However, because of the syntactic characteristics of Spanish relative clauses, the results give novel insights into the processing mechanisms that underlie relative clause processing.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using RCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items.Journal of Memory and Language59, 390–412.
3.
CliftonC.FrazierL. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies.Linguistics structure in language processingCarlsonG. N.TanenhausM. K.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4.
De VincenziM. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: The minimal chain principle.De VincenziM.Studies in theoretical psycholinguisticsNew York: Springer12.
5.
FordM. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior22, 203–218.
6.
FrazierL. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory5, 515–559.
7.
GennariS. P.MacDonaldM. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses.Journal of Memory and Language58, 161–187.
8.
GibsonE. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies.Cognition68, 1–76.
9.
GordonP. C.HendrickR.JohnsonM. (2001). Memory interference during language processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 1411–1423.
10.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences on working memory capacity.Psychological Review99, 122–149.
11.
KingJ.JustM. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory.Journal of Memory and Language30, 580–602.
12.
MakW. M.VonkW.SchriefersH. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing.Journal of Memory and Language47, 50–68.
13.
MakW. M.VonkW.SchriefersH. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush.Journal of Memory and Language54, 466–490.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1989). The psychology of readingNew York: Prentice-Hall.
16.
RealiF.ChristiansenM. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence.Journal of Memory and Language57, 1–23.
17.
TraxlerM. J.MorrisR. K.SeelyR. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements.Journal of Memory and Language47, 69–90.
18.
TraxlerM. J.WilliamsR. S.BloziS. A.MorrisR. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses.Journal of Memory and Language53, 204–224.
19.
WatersG. S.CaplanD. (1996a). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49A, 51–79.
20.
WatersG. S.CaplanD. (1996b). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences.Memory & Cognition24, 342–355.
