High Vs Low: Turkish Parser’s Attachment Preferences to Relative Clauses

Authors

  • Cengiz TURAN Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University, School of Foreign Languages, 01250 Sarıçam/Adana, Turkey, email: cturan@atu.edu.tr

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46291/ISPECIJSSHvol4iss3pp241-270

Keywords:

Attachment preferences, relative clauses, high and low attachment, garden-path, cognitive load

Abstract

The present study investigates parsing preferences to Turkish relative clauses (RC) using eye-tracker method and comprehension questions presented to the participants following each experimental sentences. In this framework, the possible effects of the RC on attachment types (low – high) were analyzed. The data gathered from a total of sixty participants were considered. Twenty-eight experimental sentences were developed based on RC and two attachment types thus, testing four conditions along with twenty-eight filler sentences. General direction of processing is that the high attachment (HA) configuration caused slightly less cognitive load than the low attachment (LA). Nevertheless, reading times belonging to HA sentences statistically longer on NP2 (the second noun phrase following the RC area). Longer fixation durations on main verbs were observed with significant differences in LA sentences. Regarding the answers to the comprehension questions, the data complement the findings from online processing. It  can be stated that Turkish parser prioritizes syntactic operations during the early processing. However, lexical-semantic information of the main verb  overrides these operations in the event of a structural ambiguity. Processing of HA sentences is more rapid than the LA sentences. Overall, Turkish is suggested to be a HA language.

References

Abney, S.P. (1989). A computational model for human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18: 129-144.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01069051

Başer, Z (2018). Ana Dili Türkçe Olan Tek Dilli ve İngilizce Öğrenen Bireylerde İlgi Tümcelerinin Bağlanmasında Sözdizimsel Hazırlama. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Middle East Technical University.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Caplan, D., Vijayan, S., Kuperberg, G., West, C., Waters, G., Greve, D. and Dale, A., (2001). Vascular responses to syntactic processing : an event related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human. Brain Mapping. 15, (pp. 26-38).

https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.1059

Crocker, M. (1996). Computational Psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1600-5

Cuetos, F. and Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-Linguistic Differences in Parsing: Restrictions on the Use of the Late Closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30: (pp. 73-105).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2

Dinçtopal-Deniz, N. (2010). Relative Clause Attachment Preferences of Turkish L2 Speakers of English: Shallow parsing in the L2. In B. VanPatten and J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research on Second Language Processing and Parsing (pp. 27-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.53.02din

Eymen, U. E. (2007). SPSS Kullanma Kılavuzu. İstatistik Merkezi Yayın.

Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, (pp. 725-745).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H

Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J. M. (1998). Syntactic reanalysis, thematic processing , and sentence comprehension. In J. D. Fodor and F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 73-100). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_3

Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 6, 1-34.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1

Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Frazier, L. (1979). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut. West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of Sentence Processing. In J. Garfield (ed.), Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Understanding (pp. 291-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Frazier, L. and Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14 (pp. 178-269).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1

Frazier, L. and Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14 (pp. 178-269).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1

Frazier, L., and Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

George, D., and Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 7.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson.

Gibson, E., Hickok, G., and Schutze, C. T. (1994). Processing Empty Categories: A Parallel Approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, (pp. 381-405).

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143946

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M. (2001). Memory Interference During Language Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, (pp. 1411-1423).

https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411

Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C. and Strube, G. (1998). Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution in German. In D. Hillert (ed.), Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31 (pp. 292-312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585492230_017

Kahraman, B (2015). Processing Turkish Relative Clauses in Context. In D. Zeyrek, Ç.S. Şimşek and U. Atas (eds.)

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc770nr.14

Kaya, M. (2010). Working Memory and Relative Clause Attachment Preferences in Turkish: An Eye-Tracking Study. Paper presented at International Conference on Turkish Linguistics 2010, Budapest, Hungary.

Kennedy, A. and Murray, W. (1984). Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, (p. 833-847).

https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.6.833

King, J., and Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic parsing : The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, (p. 580-602).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H

King, J., and Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and cause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, (p. 376-395).

https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376

Kirkici, B. (2004). The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities in Turkish. 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir.

Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.

Kornfilt, J. (2000). Some Syntactic and Morphological Properties of Relative Clauses in Turkish; in The Syntax of Relative Clauses; A. Alexiadou, C. Wilder, and P. Law (eds.); Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, (p. 121-159).

https://doi.org/10.1075/la.32.04kor

Kornfilt, J. (2009). Turkish and the Turkic Languages. In B. Comrie (Ed.), The World's Major Languages (2. Edition). (pp. 519-544). London and NY: Routledge.

MacDonald, M.C. (1993). The Interaction of Lexical and Syntactic Ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, (p. 692-715).

https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1035

MacDonald, M.C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, (pp. 195-201).

https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402115

MacDonald, M.C. (1997). Lexical Representations and Sentence Processing : An Introduction. Language and Cognitive processes, 12(2/3), (pp. 121-136).

https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386826

MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N. and Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). The Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological review, 101, (pp. 676-703).

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676

MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

MacWhinney, B. and Bates, E. (eds.) 1989. The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing . Cambridge: CUP.

MacWhinney, B. and Bates, E. (eds.) 1989. The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing . Cambridge: CUP.

Mazuka, R. & Lust, B. (1990). On parameter setting and parsing: Predictions for cross-linguistic differences in adult and child processing. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition. (pp. 163-206). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3808-6_7

Mitchell, D.C. (1987). Lexical Guidance in Human Parsing: Locus and Processing Characteristics. In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (pp. 601-618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Öztürk, B. T. and Erguvanlı E. (2016) Possessive Constructions in Turkish. Lingua. 182, (pp. 88-108).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.008

Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Cross-Linguistic Variation in Sentence Processing volume 36 of Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4690-1

Philips, C. (1996). Order and Structure. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, MIT.

Pickering, M. J. (1994). Processing Local and Unbounded Dependencies: A Unified Account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, (pp. 323-352).

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145045

Pickering, M. J., Clifton, C. Jr., and Crocker, M. W. (2000). Architectures and Mechanisms in Sentence Comprehension.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527210.002

Roland, D., Mauner, G., O'Meara, C. and Yun, H. (2012). Discourse Expectations and Schuman, H. and Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.

Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press.

Spivey-Knowlton, M. and Tanenhaus, M.K. (1994). Referential Context and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp. 415-439). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spivey-Knowlton, M., and Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving Attachment Ambiguities with Multiple Constraints. Cognition, 55, (pp. 227-267).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00647-4

Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (sixth ed.) Pearson, Boston.

Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., and Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, (pp. 1632-1634).

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863

Taraban, R. and McClelland, J.L. (1990). Parsing and Comprehension. In D. Balota, G.B. Flores D' Arcais, K. Rayner, Comprehension Processes in Reading (pp. 231-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thornton, R., Gil, M. and MacDonald, M. (1998). Accounting for Cross-Linguistic Variation: A Constraint-Based Perspective. In D. Hillert (ed.), Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic perspective. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31 (pp. 211-223). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585492230_013

Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. and Gil, M. (1999). Pragmatic Constraints on the Interpretation of Complex Noun Phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6): (pp. 1347-1365).

https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1347

Traxler, M. (2012). Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding Language Science. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., and Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, (pp. 69-70).

https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2836

Traxler, M., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., and Morris, R. K. (2005). Working Memory, Animacy, and Verb Class in the Processing of Relative Clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, (pp. 204-224).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010

Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M. K., and Kello, C. (1993). Verb-Specific Constraints in Sentence Processing: Separating Effects of Lexical Preference from Garden-Paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, (pp. 528-553).

https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.528

Turan, C. (2012). Degree of Access to Universal Grammar /Transfers from L1 in the Learning of Relative Clauses by Turkish Learners of English. Unpublished master's Thesis, Hacettpe University.

Underhill, R. (1974). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, (pp.87-99).

Waters, G. S., and Caplan, D. (1992). The Capacity Theory of Sentence Comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter. Psychological Review, 103, (pp. 761-772).

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.761

Weckerly, J., and Kutas, M. (1999). An Electrophysiological Analysis of Animacy Effects in the Processing of Object Relative Sentences. Psychophysiology, 36(5), (pp. 559-570).

https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3650559

Weinberg, A. (2001). A Minimalist Theory of Human Sentence Processing. In S.P. Epstein, N. Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065

Published

2020-06-21

How to Cite

TURAN, C. (2020). High Vs Low: Turkish Parser’s Attachment Preferences to Relative Clauses. ISPEC International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 4(3), 241-270. https://doi.org/10.46291/ISPECIJSSHvol4iss3pp241-270

Issue

Section

Articles