Interference of Implicit Causality in Relative Clause Processing.

Q1 Social Sciences
Open Mind Pub Date : 2025-03-03 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00193
Céline Pozniak, Barbara Hemforth
{"title":"Interference of Implicit Causality in Relative Clause Processing.","authors":"Céline Pozniak, Barbara Hemforth","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Differences in the processing of subject and object relative clauses have been explained by a combination of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors, such as a general subject advantage based on syntactic constraints, effects of animacy, and the discourse status of relative clause internal subjects. In this paper, we will focus on a factor related to verb meaning, the implicit causality of the verb, which biases the principal causer of the event described by the verb. Depending on whether the bias is on the subject or the object, implicit causality can conflict with the foregrounded antecedent of the relative clause, leading to increased difficulty in comprehension. We tested this hypothesis by manipulating implicit causality in subject and object relative clauses. We used both offline (acceptability judgment task) and online (self-paced reading task) methods to observe at which stage of processing implicit causality influences comprehension. Our findings from acceptability judgments showed that object relative clauses with subject-biased verbs were the least acceptable and the least understood. Conversely, object relative clauses with object-biased verbs were as acceptable and easy to understand as subject relative clauses in French. However, results from self-paced reading indicated that subject-biased verbs were more difficult to process regardless of the construction, suggesting that the integration of implicit causality occurs at a later level of processing, such as in acceptability judgments and comprehension questions. Further acceptability judgment tasks suggested that implicit causality influences relative clause acceptability beyond word order and thematic roles. We propose linking the role of implicit causality with the function of a restrictive relative clause and introduce the Aboutness Hypothesis to explain relative clause processing: a relative clause is more acceptable and easier to understand when everything contributes to making the head its optimal aboutness topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"364-400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11964117/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Differences in the processing of subject and object relative clauses have been explained by a combination of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors, such as a general subject advantage based on syntactic constraints, effects of animacy, and the discourse status of relative clause internal subjects. In this paper, we will focus on a factor related to verb meaning, the implicit causality of the verb, which biases the principal causer of the event described by the verb. Depending on whether the bias is on the subject or the object, implicit causality can conflict with the foregrounded antecedent of the relative clause, leading to increased difficulty in comprehension. We tested this hypothesis by manipulating implicit causality in subject and object relative clauses. We used both offline (acceptability judgment task) and online (self-paced reading task) methods to observe at which stage of processing implicit causality influences comprehension. Our findings from acceptability judgments showed that object relative clauses with subject-biased verbs were the least acceptable and the least understood. Conversely, object relative clauses with object-biased verbs were as acceptable and easy to understand as subject relative clauses in French. However, results from self-paced reading indicated that subject-biased verbs were more difficult to process regardless of the construction, suggesting that the integration of implicit causality occurs at a later level of processing, such as in acceptability judgments and comprehension questions. Further acceptability judgment tasks suggested that implicit causality influences relative clause acceptability beyond word order and thematic roles. We propose linking the role of implicit causality with the function of a restrictive relative clause and introduce the Aboutness Hypothesis to explain relative clause processing: a relative clause is more acceptable and easier to understand when everything contributes to making the head its optimal aboutness topic.

关系分句加工中隐含因果关系的干扰。
句法、语义和语用方面的综合因素解释了主宾关系从句加工的差异,如基于句法约束的一般主语优势、拟态性的影响以及关系从句内部主语的话语地位。在本文中,我们将重点关注与动词意义相关的一个因素,即动词的隐含因果关系,它会使动词所描述的事件的主要原因产生偏差。根据偏见是在主语上还是在宾语上,隐性因果关系可能与关系从句的前景先行词冲突,导致理解难度增加。我们通过操纵主宾关系从句中的隐含因果关系来检验这一假设。我们使用离线(可接受性判断任务)和在线(自定节奏阅读任务)方法来观察内隐因果关系在哪个处理阶段影响理解。我们从可接受性判断中发现,带有主语偏向动词的宾语关系从句是最不容易被接受和理解的。相反,法语中带有宾语偏向动词的宾语关系从句和主语关系从句一样容易接受和理解。然而,自定节奏阅读的结果表明,无论结构如何,主偏向动词都更难以加工,这表明内隐因果关系的整合发生在较晚的加工阶段,例如在可接受性判断和理解问题中。进一步的可接受性判断任务表明,隐性因果关系对相对子句可接受性的影响超越了词序和主位角色。我们建议将隐式因果关系的作用与限制性定语从句的功能联系起来,并引入关于性假设来解释定语从句的处理:当一切都有助于使词头成为最佳的关于性主题时,定语从句更容易被接受和理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信