Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that dependencies between reflexives and their licensors resist attraction effects from structurally illicit but feature-matching attractors. However, mechanisms guiding reflexive licensing in control clauses remain insufficiently explored. To address this gap, this paper examines whether reflexives in adjunct control clauses primarily seek their licensors within the same clause (i.e., from the null subject) or access noun phrases in higher clauses by probing attraction effects from attractors in the higher clauses. The licensing of the null subject is dependent on the animacy requirement of the main clause subject. Therefore, if the reflexive searches for its licensor from the higher clause, the gender manipulation of noun phrases in the higher clause should exclusively impact the reflexive processing, not the null subject licensing. A self-paced reading task reveals that the licensing of reflexives is sensitive to attraction effects, but only when the overall gender feature of the main clause subject is complex. This finding suggests that reflexives in adjunct control clauses do not exclusively rely on the null subject as a licensor; instead, they extend their search beyond the local domain of the adjunct clause, using gender cues. The observed selective attraction effects support the notion that the distinctiveness of the main clause subject matters.
References
Arnett, Nathan & Matthew Wagers. 2017. Subject encodings and retrieval interference. Journal of Memory and Language 93. 22–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.005.Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.Search in Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. 2014. The syntax of comparative constructions: Operators, ellipsis phenomena and functional left peripheries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.10.1515/east-2014-0004Search in Google Scholar
Badecker, William & Kathleen Straub. 2002. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology 28(4). 748–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.748.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M. 2010. Lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235709638_Lme4_Mixed-Effects_Modeling_With_R.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343.Search in Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. & Michael T. Putnam. 2020. Unbound dependency constructions: Theoretical and experimental perspectives (Oxford Surveys in Syntax & Morphology). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198784999.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Clifton, CharlesJr., Lyn Frazier & Patricia Deevy. 1999. Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica 11. 11–39.Search in Google Scholar
Cunnings, Ian & Patrick Sturt. 2018. Retrieval interference and semantic interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 102. 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
Cunnings, Ian & Patrick Sturt. 2023. Illusions of plausibility in adjuncts and co-ordination. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 38(9). 1318–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2023.2235033.Search in Google Scholar
Dillon, Brian, Alan Mishler, Shayne Sloggett & Colin Phillips. 2013. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 69(2). 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003.Search in Google Scholar
Engelmann, Felix, Lena Jäger & Shravan Vasishth. 2015. Cue confusion and distractor prominence can explain inconsistent interference effects. Paper presented at the 28th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of Southern California, March 19–21.Search in Google Scholar
Engelmann, Felix, Lena Jäger & Shravan Vasishth. 2019. The effect of prominence and cue association on retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science 43. e12800. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12800.Search in Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick & Marcus Johnson. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology 27(6). 1411–1423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411.Search in Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(3). 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492642.Search in Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki & Don C. Mitchell. 1999. Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(5–6). 631–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386211.Search in Google Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung & Patrick Sturt. 2013. Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3). 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.645314.Search in Google Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung & Patrick Sturt. 2014. The use of control information in dependency formation: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 73. 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.005.Search in Google Scholar
Lago, Sol, Carlos Acuña Fariña & Enrique Meseguer. 2022. The reading signatures of agreement attraction. Open Mind 5. 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00047.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2001. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Search in Google Scholar
Mazuka, Reiko. 1991. Processing of empty categories in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20. 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01067216.Search in Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana. 2018. Long-distance extraction attraction: A production-based account of an unexpected cross-linguistic structure. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.712.Search in Google Scholar
Nairne, James S. 1990. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory and Cognition 18. 251–269. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213879.Search in Google Scholar
Ness, Tal & Aya Meltzer-Asscher. 2019. When is the verb a potential gap site? The influence of filler maintenance on the active search for a gap. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34(7). 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1591471.Search in Google Scholar
Nicol, Janet & David Swinney. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(1). 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01069043.Search in Google Scholar
Parker, Dan & Adam An. 2018. Not all phrases are equally attractive: Experimental evidence for selective agreement attraction effects. Frontiers in Psychology 9. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01566.Search in Google Scholar
Parker, Dan, Sol Lago & Colin Phillips. 2015. Interference in the processing of adjunct control. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01346.Search in Google Scholar
Patil, Umesh, Shravan Vasishth & Richard L. Lewis. 2016. Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00329.Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin, Matthew W. Wagers & Ellen F. Lau. 2011. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In Jeffrey Runner (ed.), Experiments at the interfaces, 147–180. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9781780523750_006Search in Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.r-project.org.Search in Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Issues in Italian syntax. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Sturt, Patrick. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48(3). 542–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00536-3.Search in Google Scholar
Sturt, Patrick & Nayoung Kwon. 2015. The processing of raising and nominal control: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00331.Search in Google Scholar
Sturt, Patrick, Martin J. Pickering, Christoph Scheepers & Matthew W. Crocker. 2001. The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort? Journal of Memory and Language 45(2). 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2776.Search in Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie A. 2007. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology 33. 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.407.Search in Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie A. & Richard L. Lewis. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3). 285–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00081-0.Search in Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie A. & Brian McElree. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55(2). 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007.Search in Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie A. & Brian McElree. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65(3). 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002.Search in Google Scholar
Villata, Sandra & Julie Franck. 2020. Similarity-based interference in agreement comprehension and production: Evidence from object agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46(1). 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000718.Search in Google Scholar
Villata, Sandra, Whitney Tabor & Julie Franck. 2018. Encoding and retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from agreement. Frontiers in Psychology 9. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00002.Search in Google Scholar
Xiang, Ming, Brian Dillon & Colin Phillips. 2009. Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language 108(1). 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.10.002.Search in Google Scholar
Xiang, Ming, Julian Grove & Anastasia Giannakidou. 2013. Dependency dependent interference: NPI interference, agreement attraction, and global pragmatic inferences. Frontiers in Psychology 4. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00708.Search in Google Scholar
Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwarz. 2018. PennController for internet-based experiments (IBEX). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
