Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:35:40.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject/Object Processing Asymmetries in Korean Relative Clauses: Evidence from ERP Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Nayoung Kwon ,
Robert Kluender ,
Marta Kutas  and
Maria Polinsky
Nayoung Kwon*
Affiliation:
Konkuk University
Robert Kluender*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Marta Kutas*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Maria Polinsky*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Kwon Department of English, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Konkuk University, Neungdong-ro 120, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, Korea, 143-701 [nayoungkwon@konkuk.ac.kr]
Kluender Department of Linguistics, UCSD [kluender@ling.ucsd.edu]
Kutas Department of Cognitive Science, UCSD [mkutas@ucsd.edu]
Polinsky Department of Linguistics, Harvard University [polinsky@fas.harvard.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Subject relative (SR) clauses have a reliable processing advantage in VO languages like English in which relative clauses (RCs) follow the head noun. The question is whether this is also routinely true in OV languages like Japanese and Korean, in which RCs precede the head noun. We conducted an event-related brain potential (ERP) study of Korean RCs to test whether the SR advantage manifests in brain responses, and to tease apart the typological factors that might contribute to these responses. Our results suggest that brain responses to RCs are remarkably similar in VO and OV languages. Our results also suggest that the marking of the right edge of the RC in Chinese (Yang et al. 2010) and Korean and the absence of such marking in Japanese (Ueno & Garnsey 2008) affect the response to the following head noun. The consistent SR advantage found in ERP studies lends further support to a universal subject preference in the processing of relative clauses.

Keywords

Koreanrelative clausesERPsubject/object processing asymmetrylinguistic typology

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 537 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a research grant from the Department of Linguistics at the University of California, San Diego, and NRF2013-A003-0011 to Nayoung Kwon and by NICHD22614 to Marta Kutas. We thank Soonja Choi, Victor Ferreira, Susan Garnsey, Grant Goodall, John Hale, Edson Miyamoto, Roger Levy, William O’Grady, Mieko Ueno, and Shravan Vasishth for helpful discussion and comments. We also thank anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions.

References

Altmann, Gerry t., and Kamide, Yuki. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73. 247–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, Inbal. 2005. Relative clause acquisition in Hebrew: Towards a processing-oriented account. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 29. 37–48.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus, and Meng, Michael. 1999. Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28. 121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert, and Weinberg, Amy. 1983. The role of grammars in models of language use. Cognition 13. 1. 1–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bresnan, Joan, and Kaplan, Ronald. 1982. Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, xvii–lii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, David, Alpert, Nathaniel; and Waters, Gloria. 1998. Effects of syntactic structure and prepositional number on patterns of regional blood flow. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10. 541–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, David, Alpert, Nathaniel; and Waters, Gloria. 1999. PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage 9. 343–51.10.1006/nimg.1998.0412CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplan, David, Alpert, Nathaniel, Waters, Gloria; and Olivieri, Anthony. 2000. Activation of Broca's area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping 9. 65–71.3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplan, David, Vijayan, Sujith, Kuperberg, Gina, West, Caroline, Waters, Gloria, Greve, Doug; and Dale, Anders Μ.. 2002. Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human Brain Mapping 15. 26–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplan, David, Stanczak, Louise; and Waters, Gloria. 2008. Syntactic and thematic constraint effects on blood oxygenation level dependent signal correlates of comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20. 643–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carreiras, Manuel, Dunabeitia, Jon Andoni, Vergara, Marta, de la Cruz-Pavia, Irene; and Laka, Itziar. 2010. Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition 115. 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Baoguo, Ning, Aihua, Bi, Hongyan; and Dunlap, Susan. 2008. Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica 129. 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Evan, West, W. Caroline, Waters, Gloria; and Caplan, David. 2006. Determinants of bold signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses. Cortex 42. 591–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Zhong, Li, Qiang, Kuo, Kue-Lan; and Vasishth, Shravan. 2010. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the universal subject preference. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the universal subject preference: University of Potsdam, MS.Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-Won. 1997. Topic and focus in Korean: The information partition by phrase structure and morphology. Japanese/Korean linguistics 6, ed. by Sohn, Ho-min and Haig, John, 545–61. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren Eby, Coon, Jessica, Pedro, Pedro Mateo, Morgan, Adam, Polinsky, Maria, Tandet, Gabrielle; and Wagers, Matt. 2012. Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan. Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan: University of California, Santa Cruz, MS. Online: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001630.Google Scholar
Cohen, Laurent, and Mehler, Jacques. 1996. Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 24. 94–102.10.3758/BF03197275CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Constable, r. Todd, Pugh, Kenneth r., Berroya, Ella, Mencl, w. Einar, Westerveld, Michael, Ni, Weijia; and Shankweiler, Donald. 2004. Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 22. 11–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooke, Ayanna, Zurif, Edgar b., DeVita, Christian, Alsop, David, Koenig, Phyllis, Detre, John, Gee, James, Pināngo, Maria, Balogh, Jennifer; and Grossman, Murray. 2002. Neural basis for sentence comprehension: Grammatical and short-term memory components. Human Brain Mapping 15. 80–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulson, Seana, King, Jonathan W.; and Kutas, Marta. 1998. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 14. 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert Μ. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68. 81138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, Claudia, Clahsen, Harald; and Münte, Thomas F.. 2003. Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language 87. 345–54.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00135-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiebach, Christian J., Schlesewsky, Matthias; and Friederici, Angela D.. 2002. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 250–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 427–73.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1983. Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 163–223.10.1007/BF00635643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry a., Bever, Thomas g.; and Garrett, Merrill F.. 1974. The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, Ulli, Segui, Juan; and Mehler, Jacques. 1980. Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19. 328–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M., 129–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 519–59.10.1007/BF00138988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles Jr. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4. 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela d., Pfeifer, Erdmut; and Hahne, Anja. 1993. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research 1. 183–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, Naama, and Novogrodsky, Rama. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language 31. 661–81.10.1017/S0305000904006269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 1990. Recency preference and garden-path effects. Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 372–79.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76.10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, language, brain: Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project symposium, ed. by Marantz, Alec P., Miyashita, Yasushi, and O’Neil, Wayne, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, and Wu, Iris. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 125–55.10.1080/01690965.2010.536656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouvea, Ana, Phillips, Colin, Kazanina, Nina; and Poeppel, David. 2010. The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes 25. 149–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gunter, Thomas c., Stowe, Laurie A.; and Mulder, Gijsbertus. 1997. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology 34. 660–76.10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02142.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagiwara, Hiroko, Soshi, Takahiro, Ishihara, Masami; and Imanaka, Kuniyasu. 2007. A topographical study on the event-related potential correlates of scrambled word order in Japanese complex sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19. 2. 175–93.10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, Brown, Colin; and Groothusen, Jolanda. 1993. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 439–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, John. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30. 609–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 223–61.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75. 244–85.10.2307/417261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, George B. 1979. Abkhaz. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Holmes, Virginia m., and Kevin O’Regan, J.. 1981. Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20. 417–30.10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90533-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Franny, and Gibson, Edward. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90. 3–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huynh, Huynh, and Feldt, Leonard S.. 1976. Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics 1. 69–82.10.3102/10769986001001069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishizuka, Tomoko, Nakatani, Kentaro; and Gibson, Edward. 2003. Relative clause extraction complexity in Japanese. Poster presented at the 16th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, MIT.Google Scholar
Ishizuka, Tomoko, Nakatani, Kentaro; and Gibson, Edward. 2006. Processing Japanese relative clauses in context. Paper presented at the 19th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, CUNY.Google Scholar
Jha, Amishi P., and McCarthy, Gregory. 2000. The influence of memory load upon delayinterval activity in a working-memory task: An event-related functional MRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12. 90–105.10.1162/089892900564091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel a., Carpenter, Patricia a., Keller, Timothy a., Eddy, William F.; and Thulborn, Keith R.. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274. 114–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaan, Edith, Harris, Anthony, Gibson, Edward; and Holcomb, Philip. 2000. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 15. 159–201.10.1080/016909600386084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahraman, Baris, Sato, Atsushi, Ono, Hajime; and Sakai, Hiromu. 2010. Relative clauses processing before the head noun: Evidence for strong forward prediction in Turkish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL6)) 61. 155–70.Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Scheepers, Christoph; and Altmann, Gerry T. M.. 2003. Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32. 37–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanno, Kazue. 2007. Factors affecting the processing of Japanese relative clauses by L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29. 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanno, Kazue, and Nakamura, Michiko. 2001. Processing of relative clauses by Japanese native speakers and L2 learners. Journal of the Canadian Association for Japanese Language Education 4. 134–48.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Joo. 2000. Subject/object drop in the acquisition of Korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9. 325–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Youngjin. 1999. The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 14. 687–714.10.1080/016909699386239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Jonathan, and Just, Marcel Adam. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30. 580–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Jonathan, and Kutas, Marta. 1995. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7. 376–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kluender, Robert. 2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account? West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 23. 475–99.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert, and Kutas, Marta. 1993a. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbound dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5. 2. 196214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Robert, and Kutas, Marta. 1993b. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Robert, and Münte, Thomas F.. 1998. ERPs to grammatical and ungrammatical wh-questions in German: Subject/object asymmetries. Poster presented at the 11th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Newark, NJ.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta, and Hillyard, Steven. 1983. Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory & Cognition 11. 539–50.10.3758/BF03196991CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, Nayoung. 2008a. A parsing paradox in head final languages: Head-driven vs. incremental parsing. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37. 43–54.Google Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung. 2008b. Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung, Lee, Younhyoung, Gordon, Peter C., Kluender, Robert; and Polinsky, Maria. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86. 54682.10.1353/lan.2010.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung, Polinsky, Maria; and Kluender, Robert. 2006. Subject preference in Korean. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 25. 1–14.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lewis, Richard L., and Vasishth, Shravan. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29. 375–419.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, Richard L., Vasishth, Shravan; and Van Dyke, Julie A.. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10. 447–54.10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, Chien-Jer Charles, and Bever, Thomas G.. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 25. 254–60.Google Scholar
Lin, Yowyu. 2010. Comprehending Mandarin relative clauses: Ambiguity, locality, and expectation. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Google Scholar
Lin, Yowyu, and Garnsey, Susan Μ.. 2007. Plausibility and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. Proceedings of the 20th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham, and Blake, Barry. 1981. Language typology: Crosslinguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Matzke, Mike, Mai, Heinke, Nager, Wido, Rüsseler, Jascha; and Münte, Thomas. 2002. The costs of freedom: An ERP-study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology 113. 844–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, Brian. 2001. Working memory and focal attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27. 817–35.Google ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, Judith, Osterhout, Lee; and Kim, Albert. 2004. Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience 7. 703–4.10.1038/nn1264CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mecklinger, Axel, Schriefers, Herbert, Steinhauer, Karsten; and Friederici, Angela d.. 1995. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition 23. 477–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, George A., and Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 419–92. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Edson T. 2002. Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31. 307–47.10.1023/A:1019540324040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyamoto, Edson T., and Nakamura, Michiko. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 22. 342–55.Google Scholar
Müller, Horst Μ., King, Jonathan W.; and Kutas, Marta. 1997. Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research 5. 193–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Münte, Thomas F., Heinze, Hans-Jochen; and Mangun, George R.. 1993. Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5. 335–44.10.1162/jocn.1993.5.3.335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Münte, Thomas f., Heinze, Hans-Jochen, Matzke, Mike, Wieringa, Bernardina Μ.; and Johannes, Sönke. 1998. Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia 36. 217–26.10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00119-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Münte, Thomas F., Schiltz, Kolja; and Kutas, Marta. 1998. When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature 395. 71–73.10.1038/25731CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Münte, Thomas f., Schwirtz, O., Wieringa, Bernadette Μ., Matzke, Mike; and Johannes, Sönke. 1997. Elektrophysiologie komplexer Sätze: Ereigniskorrelierte Potentiale auf der Wort- und Satz-Ebene. Zeitschrift für Elektroenzephalographie, Elektromyographie und verwandte Gebiete 28. 11–17.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Michiko. 2000. Processing of relative clauses: A psycholinguistic study of adult native speakers of Japanese. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 31. 59–73.Google Scholar
Neville, Helen, Nicol, Janet L., Barss, Andrew, Forster, Kenneth I.; and Garrett, Merrill F.. 1991. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3. 151–65.10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Grady, William. 1997. Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226620787.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, William. 2011. Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. The acquisition of relative clauses: Functional and typological perspectives, ed. by Kidd, Evan, 13–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, Lee, and Holcomb, Phillip J.. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, Lee, and Mobley, Linda A.. 1995. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 34. 739–73.10.1006/jmla.1995.1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin, Kazanina, Nina; and Abada, Shani H.. 2005. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 22. 40728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polinsky, Maria. 2011. Reanalysis in adult heritage language: New evidence in support of attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33. 305–28.10.1017/S027226311000077XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, Gallo, Carlos Gómez, Graff, Peter; and Kravtchenko, Ekaterina. 2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122. 267–77.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, Bradley L. 1991. Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20. 251–70.10.1007/BF01067218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiao, Xiaomei, Shen, Liyao; and Forster, Kenneth. 2012. Relative clause processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the maze task. Language and Cognitive Processes 27. 61130.10.1080/01690965.2011.578394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Rösler, Frank, Pechmann, Thomas, Streb, Judith, Röder, Brigitte; and Hen-nighausen, Erwin. 1998. Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 150–76.10.1006/jmla.1997.2551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rösler, Frank, Pütz, Peter, Friederici, Angela; and Hahne, Anja. 1993. Event-related brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5. 345–62.10.1162/jocn.1993.5.3.345CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesewsky, Matthias, Bornkessel, Ina; and Frisch, Stefan. 2003. The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German. Brain and Language 86. 116–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schriefers, Herbert, Friederici, Angela D.; and Kuhn, Katja. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34. 499–520.10.1006/jmla.1995.1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Florian. 2007. Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics 24. 373416.Google Scholar
Sheldon, Amy. 1974. The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13. 272–81.10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80064-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromswold, Karin, Caplan, David, Alpert, Nathaniel; and Rauch, Scott. 1996. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52. 452–73.10.1006/brln.1996.0024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturt, Patrick, and Crocker, Matthew W.. 1996. Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes 11. 449–94.10.1080/016909696387123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Morris, Robin K.; and Seely, Rachel E.. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 69–90.10.1006/jmla.2001.2836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, Mieko, and Garnsey, Susan Μ.. 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23. 646–88.10.1080/01690960701653501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, Mieko, and Kluender, Robert. 2003. Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling. Brain and Language 86. 243–71.10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00543-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ueno, Mieko, and Kluender, Robert. 2009. On the processing of Japanese wh-questions: An ERP study. Brain Research 1290. 63–90.10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vos, Sandra h., Gunter, Thomas c., Kolk, Herman h. J.; and Mulder, Gijbertus. 2001. Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology 38. 41–63.10.1111/1469-8986.3810041CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, Tessa, and Gibson, Edward. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85. 79–112.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00087-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weckerly, Jill, and Kutas, Marta. 1999. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36. 559–70.10.1111/1469-8986.3650559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, Susann, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Hirotani, Masako; and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2008. The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language 107. 133–57.10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamashita, Hiroko. 1994. Processing of Japanese and Korean. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko. 1997. The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26. 163–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Chin Lung, Perfetti, Charles A.; and Liu, Ying. 2010. Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language 112. 85–100.10.1016/j.bandl.2009.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yip, Virginia, and Matthews, Stephen. 2007. Relative clauses in Cantonese-English bilingual children: Typological challenges and processing motivations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29. 277–300.10.1017/S0272263107070143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaksas, Daniel, and Pasternak, Tatiana. 2006. Directional signals in the prefrontal cortex and in area MT during a working memory for visual motion task. Journal of Neuro-science 26. 11726–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Kwon et al. supplementary material

Kwon et al. supplementary material
Download Kwon et al. supplementary material(File)
File 5.3 MB