Animacy Effect on Turkish Object Relative Clause Production among Young Adult Native Speakers of Turkish
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.MetaDataShow full item record
This study investigates animacy influence on Turkish RC formation and its consistency in different tasks/contexts. Meanwhile, the interference of semantic (e.g. frequency) and syntactic variables (e.g. structural difficulty) in RC formation is also analysed. Therefore, a Picture Description and Metalinguistic Awareness Task were applied to two participant groups composed of young adult Turkish native speakers (nG1=46, nG2=58). After combining the data of groups, animacy effect on RC passivization in each task was tested by Chi-square test and their RC outcomes were compared by Kappa to check the consistency of the animacy influence. Finally, RC and statements in METU Turkish Corpus were analysed and outcomes of 105 RCs and 657 statements data were compared with participant RC use outcomes by using Two-Proportions Analysis to check a possible frequency or structural simplicity effect on RC formation. In the end, a significant effect of animacy was observed in both tasks; however, the comparison outcomes attested no agreement between the tasks in terms of RC preferences. Thus, two factors were assumed to have interfered in RC production process in either task: visual salience and task difficulty. Corpus RCs also demonstrated a significant animacy influence, which was initially associated with the fine-grain version of Tuning Hypothesis; however, the two-proportions test results indicated some other factors that could have influenced the RC preferences in corpus like genre or some other semantic (e.g. concreteness) or discourse (e.g. topicalization) factors. Meanwhile, corpus statements did not demonstrate any reactions to animacy, yet they were concluded to share more similarities with Object RCs than passive RCs in terms of argument structure and word order, which were presumed to be the reasons for high rate of active ORC preference in participant data and for the statistical similarities between participant RC and corpus statement preferences as shown by two-proportions test.
xmlui.dri2xhtml.METS-1.0.item-citationAcuña-Fariña, C., Fraga, I., García-Orza, J., & Piñeiro, A. (2009) Animacy in the adjunction of Spanish RCs to complex NPs. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(8), 1137 - 1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802622824 Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30 (3), 191–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010- 0277(88)90020-0 Altmann, L.J.P., & Kemper S. (2006). Effects of age, animacy and activation order on sentence production, Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 1-3. 322-354, https://doi.org/10.1080/0169096054400006 Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 295-315. doi:10.1017/S0142716407070154 Babyonyshev, M., & Gibson, E. (1999). The complexity of nested structures in Japanese. Language, 75(3), 423-450. https://doi.org/10.2307/417056 Bamyacı, E., Häussler, J., & Kabak, B. (2014). The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua, 148, 254-277. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.06.005 Başer, Z. (2018). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachment in monolingual Turkish speakers and Turkish learners of English (12622043) [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. Metu Library Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511814358 Blohm ,S., Menninghaus, W., & Schlesewsky, M. (2017) Sentence-Level Effects of Literary Genre: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence. Frontiers in Psycholology, 8, 1887. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01887 Boran, B. (2018). The role of context on processing of Turkish subject and object relative clauses (29) [Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University]. İngiliz Dilbilimi Bölümü Tez Koleksiyonu. Brandt, S., Diessel, H.; & Tomasello, M. (2008). The acquisition of German relative clauses: A case study. Journal of Child Language, 35, 325-348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000907008379 Briggs, S.R., & Cheek, J.M. (1986) The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54 (1), 106-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D.C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(3), 664–695. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F713755636 Bulut, T , Yarar, E , & Wu, D . (2020). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses: Evidence from eye-tracking and corpus analysis . Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi , 2 (3) , 211-246 . https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dkyad/issue/51840/634808 Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002383099303600401 Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, 27, 826–833. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03198535 Carvalho, S., & White, H. (1997). Combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches to poverty measurement and analysis: The practice and the potential. World Bank Technical Paper 366. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(1), 45–61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178848 Cook, V. (2003). Changing the first language in the L2 user’s mind: Introduction to L2 effects on the L1. Vivian cook. http://www.viviancook.uk/Writings/Papers/EffectsIntro.htm Coupland, N. (2011). Voice, place and genre in popular song performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(5), 573–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00514.x Craik, F. I. M., & Byrd, M. (1982). Aging and cognitive deficits: The role of attentional resources. In F. I. M. Craik and S. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and cognitive processes (pp. 191– 211). New York: Plenum. Craik, F. I. M. (1986). A functional account of age differences in memory. In F. Klix and H. Hagendorf (Eds.), Human memory and cognitive abilities: Mechanisms and performances (pp. 409–422). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D.R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A.M.N. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2 Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D.C., & Corley, M.M.B. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J.E. Gar- cia–Albea, and N. Sebastian–Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc Declerck, M. & Kormos, J. (2012). The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 15(4). 782 - 796 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000629. DeDe, G. (2015). Effects of animacy on processing relative clauses in older and younger adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(3), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.956766 Denzin, N. K. (1973). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & De Baecke, C. (2002). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(3), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000604 Desmet, T., Baecke C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M. & Vonk, W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 453-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023485 De Vellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed., Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 882-906. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0169 Ehrlich, K., Fernandez, E., Fodor, J.D., Stenshoel, E., & Vinereanu, M. (1999, March). Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, USA. Ferguson, C. A. (1994). Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press Fernandez, E.M. (1998). Language dependency in parsing: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual processing. Psychologica Belgica, 38(3), 197–230. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/qc_pubs/228 Ferreira, V.S., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), 1187-1199. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12450341/ Finardi, K. R. (2008). Effects of task repetition on L2 oral performance. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 47(1), 31-43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103- 18132008000100003 Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Boston: MIT Press. Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (2000). Resolving syntactic ambiguities: Cross-linguistic differences? In M. De Vincenzi and V.Lombardo (Eds.), Cross–linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 119–148). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Garrett, M.F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 133-177). New York: Academic Press. Garrett, M.F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1, pp. 177-220). London: Academic Press. Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 161– 187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.004 Gennari, S.P., Mirkovic, J. & MacDonald, M. C. (2005, March 25–27). The role of animacy in relative clause production [Paper presentation]. The 17th Annual Cuny Conference on Human Sentence Processing. USA. Gennari, S. P., Mirković, J., & Macdonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive psychology, 65(2), 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002 Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Torrens, V. (1999). Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish. Memory and Cognition, 27, 603–611. Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Ph.D dissertation, University of Barcelona Gleichmann, N. (2020, February 14). Paired vs Unpaired T-Test: Differences, Assumptions and Hypotheses. Technology networks. https://www.technologynetworks.com/informatics/articles/paired-vs-unpaired-ttest-differences-assumptions-and-hypotheses-330826 Hale, J. (2006). Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 643– 672. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_64 Hamilton, R. (1995). The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in SLA: Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In W. O’Grady (1999). Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 21, pp. 621-633). Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, J. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75(2), 244-285. https://doi.org/10.2307/417261 Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: Two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, and C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 259–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henstra, J. (1996, September). Relative clause attachment in English: Eye–tracking versus self–paced reading. Poster presented at AMLaP–96, Turino, Italy. Horton, W.S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 Igoa, J.M., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. (1998). A study on late closure in Spanish: Principle–grounded versus frequency–based accounts of attachment preferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 51(3), 561–592. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F713755775 Johnston J. (2010). Factors that influence language development. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from http://www.childencyclopedia.com/language-development-and-literacy/according-experts/factorsinfluence-language-development Jendraschek, G. (2011). A fresh look at the tense-aspect system of Turkish. Language Research, 47(2), 245-270. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Fresh-Lookat-the-Tense-aspect-System-of-TurkishJendraschek/adf96c74cbfb5ec74e2affff1bd0999b2b88c495 Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20(2), 137–194. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1 Kahraman, B. (2015). Processing Turkish relative clauses in context. In D. Zeyrek, Ç.S. Şimşek, J. Rehbein and U. Atas (Eds.), Turcologica: Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics, (Vol. 103, pp. 98-109). Harrassowitz Verlag. Kecskes, I., Papp, T. (2000) Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kempen G., & Vosse, T. (1992). Incremental Syntactic Tree Formation in Human Sentence Processing: a Cognitive Architecture Based on Activation Decay and Simulated Annealing, Connectionist Natural Language Processing, 1(3), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2624-3_5 Kırkıcı, B. (2004). The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities in Turkish. Turkic Languages, 8, 111-121. Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2002). English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses: Evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021265021141 Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 860–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601155284 Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kornfilt, J. (1997). On the syntax and morphology of relative clauses in Turkish. In K. İmer, A. Kocaman and S. Özsoy (Eds.), Dilbilim Araştırmaları (Linguistic Investigations) (24-51). Ankara: Kebikeç Yayınları. Krause, E., & Heusinger, K. (2019). Gradient effects of animacy on differential object marking in Turkish. Open Linguistics, 5(1), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli2019-0011 Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. D. P. G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.117-135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126– 1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 Loui, S., & Gennari, S.P. (2008, August, 25-27). The role of animacy in the production of Greek relative clauses [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2nd ISCA Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, Greece. https://www.iscaspeech.org/archive/exling_2008/papers/exl8_145.pdf MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language, 53, 152-187. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Starting-PointsMacWhinney/0b40d73716e5e48cb61c3453e36e7a3ff771309c Marusteri, M. & Bacarea, V. (2010). Comparing groups for statistical differences: How to choose the right statistical test?. Biochemia Medica, 20(1). 15-32. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2010.004 McCombes, S. (2021, January 19). An introduction to sampling methods. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/ McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1006/JMLA.1997.2543 Mitchell, D.C., Cuetos, F., & Zagar, D. (1990). Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? In D. Balota, G.B. Flores d’Arcais, and K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 285–302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Mitchell D. C., Cuetos F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp.1-12). Austin: University of Texas, Centre for Cognitive Science. Mitchell, D.C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (2000). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of Construal Theory. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, and J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 493– 516). Oxford: Elsevier. Mitchell D. C., Cuetos F., Corley M. M. B., & Brysbaert M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143162 Miyamoto, E.T. (1998). Relative clause processing in Brazilian Portuguese and Japanese. [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Montag, J. L., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Word order doesn't matter: Relative clause production in English and Japanese [Paper presentation]. In N. A. Taatgen, & H. van Rijn. Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX (2594– 2599). Cognitive Science Society Montag, J. L., & MacDonald, M. C. (2014). Visual salience modulates structure choice in relative clause production. Language and speech, 57(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913495656 O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. O’Grady, W. (1999). Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 621-633. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004040 O’Grady, W. (2008). The emergentist program, Lingua, 118(4), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.12.001 Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2009). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever, and D. Peçenek (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL), Wiesbaden. Harrasowitz Verlag. Özge, D. Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. (2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: Online comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1230-1243. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.995108 Özge, D., Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. (2010). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever ve D. Peçenek (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL) (pp. 341-350). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag. Özge, D. & Marinis, T. and Zeyrek, D. (2010). Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In (J. Chandlee, K. Iserman, and L. Keil (Eds.). Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education Open University Press. Pearlmutter, N. J.,& Gibson, E. (2001). Recency in verb phrase attachment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(2), 574-590. https://doi.org/10.1037/%2F0278-73220.127.116.114 Peat, J. (2001). Health science research: A handbook of quantitative methods. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Petry, N.M. (2002) A comparison of young, middle-aged, and older adult treatmentseeking pathological gamblers. Gerontologist, 42(1), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/42.1.92 Petty, N. (2012, February 1). Choosing which statistical test to use - statistics help. [Video]. Youtube. https://youtu.be/rulIUAN0U3w Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task condition, task complexity and variation in L2 discourse. [Ph.D. dissertation] University of Queensland. Révész, A. (2012). Task complexity, focus on form-meaning connections, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 162-181. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4871.2011.01241 Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language learning, 45(1), 99–145. doi:10.1111/j.1467.1770.1995.tb00964 Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 Salthouse, T. A. (2000). Steps towards the explanation of adult age differences in cognition. In T. J. Perfect and E. A. Maylor, (Eds.), Models of cognitive aging (pp. 19–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Say, B. (n.d.) METU Turkish Corpus (MTC). Available at https://ii.metu.edu.tr/metu-corpora-research-group Shantikumar, S. (2018). Methods of sampling from a population. Health knowledge. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1aepidemiology/methods-of-sampling-population Solak, H.G. (2007). Animacy effect on sentence structure choice: A study on Turkish learners of L2 English. [Master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University. Squires, L. (2019). Genre and linguistic expectation shift: Evidence from pop song lyrics. Language in Society, 48(1), 1-30. doi:10.1017/S0047404518001112 Stephanie Glen, S. (2013, December 10). Standardized residuals in statistics: What are they? Statistics how to. https://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-a-standardizedresiduals/ Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2), 211-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386853 Tavakolian, S. L. (1978). The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses and other structures. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 3(3) 167–87. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/umop/vol3/iss2/3 Thornton, R., MacDonald, M.C., & Gil, M. (1999). Pragmatic constraint on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25(6), 1347–1365. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7318.104.22.1687 Tredoux, C., & Durrheim, K. (2004). Numbers, Hypotheses and Conclusions: A Course in Statistics for the Social Sciences (6th ed.). University of Cape Town Press Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014 Turan, C. (2018). An eye-tracking investigation of attachment preferences to relative clauses in Turkish [PhD Dissertation]. Hacettepe University. Türk dil kurumu. (2019). Retrieved from https://sozluk.gov.tr/ VERBI Software. (2019). MAXQDA 2020 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75(2), 105-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00063-9 Warren, T., & Gibson, E., (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85(1), 79-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010- 0277(02)00087-2 Yun, J., Chen, Z., Hunter, T., Whitman, J., & Hale, J. (2015). Uncertainty in processing relative clauses across East Asian languages. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 24(2), 113–148. Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., & Li, K. Z. H. (2000). Human memory. In F. I. M. Craik and T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 293–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Zagar, D., Pynte, J., & Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on firstpass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(2), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755715
The following license files are associated with this item: