Base_JSON/prefixC/json/C80/C80-1010.json

{
    "paper_id": "C80-1010",
    "header": {
        "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
        "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:05:55.944353Z"
    },
    "title": "THE ROLE OF PERCEPTUAL STRATEGIES IN THE PROCESSING OF ENGLISH RELATIVE CLAUSE STRUCTURES",
    "authors": [
        {
            "first": "Gary",
            "middle": [
                "D"
            ],
            "last": "Prideaux",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "University of Alberta",
                "location": {
                    "postCode": "T6G 2H1",
                    "settlement": "Edmonton, Alberta",
                    "country": "Canada"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        }
    ],
    "year": "",
    "venue": null,
    "identifiers": {},
    "abstract": "In order to assess competing predictions made by several different perceptual strategies, an experiment was conducted, using as stimuli English sentences containing a variety of types of relative clauses. The results indicated that of all the strategies investigated, only Word Order and Interruption played significant roles in the comprehension of the sentences. A similar experiment was then conducted using dapanese sentences with relative clauses, and exactly the same two strategies were found to account for the data. The Given-New strategy was also found to play an important role in the two languages.",
    "pdf_parse": {
        "paper_id": "C80-1010",
        "_pdf_hash": "",
        "abstract": [
            {
                "text": "In order to assess competing predictions made by several different perceptual strategies, an experiment was conducted, using as stimuli English sentences containing a variety of types of relative clauses. The results indicated that of all the strategies investigated, only Word Order and Interruption played significant roles in the comprehension of the sentences. A similar experiment was then conducted using dapanese sentences with relative clauses, and exactly the same two strategies were found to account for the data. The Given-New strategy was also found to play an important role in the two languages.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Abstract",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "body_text": [
            {
                "text": "Over the past few years, functional considerations have come to play an important role in the empirical study of language comprehension processes. This functional perspective assumes that hearers employ a set of perceptual, ~ mental, 2 or cognitive strategies to extract semantic information directly from surface structure. Throughout the psycholinguistic literature, a wide variety of strategies has been proposed, some with a syntactic orientation, and others having a semantic or even a discourse basis. Moreover, some strategies appear to be language specific, while others are language independent.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The term \"perceptual\" is somewhat inappropriate in this context since the processes involved typically do not refer to perception in even its most general sense.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The more apt term \"cognitive\" will be used throughout this paper. ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "SSa: NP[RP V NP] V NP",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The man that chased the dog saw the boy.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The man that the dog chased saw the boy.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "SOa: NP [RP NP V] V NP",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The man saw the boy that chased the dog. OOa: NP V NP [RP NP V] The man saw the boy that the dog chased.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 54,
                        "end": 63,
                        "text": "[RP NP V]",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OSa: NP V NP[RP V N P]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In the coding to the left of each structure, the first letter represents the grammatical role (subject or object) of the NP on which the relative clause is formed, while the second letter represents the grammatical role played by the relative pronoun. The third letter represents the fact that the relative clause is in the active voice.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OSa: NP V NP[RP V N P]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "A parallel set of structures can be constructed in which the relative clause is in the passive voice.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OSa: NP V NP[RP V N P]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "These are:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OSa: NP V NP[RP V N P]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "SSp: NP[RP be Ved by NP] V NP The man that was chased by the dog saw the boy.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OSa: NP V NP[RP V N P]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The man that the dog was chased by saw the boy.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "SOp: NP[RP NP be Ved by] V NP",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The man saw the Doy that was chased by the dog.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OSp: NP V NP[RP be Ved by NP]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The man saw the boy that the dog was chased by. These are listed in Table  1 , where \">\" signifies \"is easier to comprehend than\" or \"is more natural than.\" In terms of the Given-New strategy, this makes a great deal of sense.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 68,
                        "end": 76,
                        "text": "Table  1",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OOp: NP V NP[RP NP be Ved by]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "V O[SVO] OOa S V O[OSV] 2 SOa S[OSV] 0 V SSa S[SVO] V 0 3 OSp S V O[SVO] SSp S[SVO] V 0 4 OOp S V O[OSV] SOp S[OSV] V",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In the SVO case, the relative proqoun appears to be Given for two reasons: it is a subject and it is a relative pronoun.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The agentive NP object is precisely where New information should be.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In the OSV case, however, the relative pronoun should be Given since it is a relative pronoun, but it should be New since it is the object of the preposition ..~. Furthermore, the subject NP is in the New position, but as subject it should be Given.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Consequently, the Given-New strategy seems to be working against itself in the passive relative clauses with OSV word order, One final aspect of the Given-New factor must also be mentioned. Typically, definite NPs are construed as Given information.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In the stimuli for the present experiment, however, a11 NPs were definite.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "If a relative clause is formed on a definite NP, there may be a tendency to view the relative clause as adding to the definiteness or specificity of the NP, thereby making it even more \"Given,\" regardless of where it is placed in the sentence.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Consequently, within the active group, the Given-New strategy might be viewed as a \"force ' These results are represented in Table 3 . Only speculation can be offered as to why the OV word order is preferred to the SV. dapanese, like English, appears to obey the Given-New strategy, but unlike English; Japanese permits the omission of an \"understood\" (e.g., Given)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 125,
                        "end": 132,
                        "text": "Table 3",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF5"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "'",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "NP, making sentences without overt subjects quite common. Within relative clauses, the Given, relativized NP is omitted.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "But since Given subjects may also be omitted, it follows that the OV clause type would be more natural and common than the SV type when the verb is transitive.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In short, the Japanese data support the cross-linguistic viability of the Word Order, Interruption, and Given-New strategies. However, other strategies were also found to be operable. The semantic strategy which associates subject with agent is in fact a version of Word Order.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Several",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the Given-New strategy was found to be of extreme importance, both for English and for Japanese. Finally, a hierarchy of strategies has suggested itself. The Given-New strategy is obviously of great importance for sentences in context, and although the stimuli used in the two studies reported here were presented in isolation, the strategy still seems to be operative.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Furthermore, within a particular sentence, it appears that Word Order criteria must be satisfied before Interruption is employed.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "There are still numerous loose ends to be investigated.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The definiteness of NPs must be varied experimentally to tighten up the tentative suggestions concerning the Givenness of definite NPs; sentences must be carefully studied in contexts; text counts should be undertaken to establish the proportion of relative clauses and their positions, in accordance with such factors as definiteness,",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Interruption, and the Given-New strategy.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The present study has only scratched the surface, but at least the results are encouraging in that they accord we]] across two very different languages, providing a start on the problem of the interaction of cognitive strategies.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusions",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "back_matter": [
            {
                "text": "Acknowledqemen.ts",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "acknowledgement",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "bib_entries": {
            "BIBREF0": {
                "ref_id": "b0",
                "title": "The cognitive basis for linguistic structures",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "T",
                        "middle": [
                            "G"
                        ],
                        "last": "Bever",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1970,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "279--352",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Bever, T. G. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In d, R. Hayes (Ed.), Coqnition and the development o_.f_ language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970, 279-352.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF1": {
                "ref_id": "b1",
                "title": "The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in universal grammar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "H",
                        "middle": [
                            "H"
                        ],
                        "last": "Clark",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "E",
                        "middle": [
                            "V"
                        ],
                        "last": "Clark",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1977,
                "venue": "Canadian Journal of Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. Psychology and language: An. introduction t_9 \" psycholinquistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. 3. Dryer, M, S. The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in universal grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, forthcoming.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF2": {
                "ref_id": "b2",
                "title": "_O. understanding qramrnar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "T",
                        "middle": [
                            "O"
                        ],
                        "last": "Givon",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1979,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Givon, T. O. . _O. understanding qramrnar. New York: Academic Press, 1979.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF3": {
                "ref_id": "b3",
                "title": "The acquisition o_.f. Japanese rela.tive clauses",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Kawashima",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1980,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Kawashima, M. The acquisition o_.f. Japanese rela.tive clauses. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta, 1980.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF4": {
                "ref_id": "b4",
                "title": "The development o.j_ relative clauses: Comprehension strategies i",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [
                            "E"
                        ],
                        "last": "Lynkowsky",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1980,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "LynKowsKy, P. E. The development o.j_ relative clauses: Comprehension strategies i__.n English and UKrainian. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Alberta, 1980.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF5": {
                "ref_id": "b5",
                "title": "The acquisition of re]ative clauses: A functional analysis. Canadian dournal o.j. Linguistics, 19?9",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "G",
                        "middle": [
                            "D"
                        ],
                        "last": "Prideaux",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "24",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Prideaux, G. D. The acquisition of re]ative clauses: A functional analysis. Canadian dournal o.j. Linguistics, 19?9, 24, 25\"40.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF6": {
                "ref_id": "b6",
                "title": "The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. dournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "A",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Sheldon",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1974,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "13",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "272--281",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Sheldon, A. The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. dournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 272-281.",
                "links": null
            }
        },
        "ref_entries": {
            "TABREF1": {
                "text": "The man that chased the dog saw the boy, the strategy assigns The man as subject of chased and the doq as object.",
                "content": "<table><tr><td>was</td><td>later</td><td colspan=\"2\">found 9 to</td><td>be</td><td>far</td><td>less</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">operative</td><td>for</td><td>adults.</td><td colspan=\"3\">There are twc</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">strategies proposed to account for the differential have beery ease of processing of structures containing relative clauses, a~though most proposals have concentrated on actives and have not addressed the problem of passive relative clauses, When these strategies are gathered together, however, it becomes obvious that they make different predictions. The original purpose of the research reported here was to evaluate four important strategies bearing on relative clause processing, in the context of a single experiment with stimuli based on the eight structures discussed above. The incorporation of passive relative clauses was an important added dimension, since it is the passives which serve to differentiate among the strategies. A related goal was to eliminate from consideration those strategies for which empirical support was not forthcoming. A final goal was to establish a hierarchy among the relevant strategies. The following cognitive strategies are all relevant to the processing of sentences containing relative clauses: She Parallel Function (PF) Strategy. Comprehension for sentences containing relative clauses is facilitated if the relative pronoun plays the same grammatical role (S or O) as is played by the modified noun. 8 The Interruption Strategy. A non-interrupted clause is easier to comprehend than an interrupted clause. ~\u00b0 The Word Order Strateqy. A clause in normal word order is easier to comprehend than a clause in non-normal word order. I\u00b0 The Adjacency Strategy. In parsing a noncompound sentence, start from the left and group together as constituents of the same clause two adjacent NPs (i.e., those not separated by another NP) and an adjacent verb not already assigned to a clause. Interpret the first NP as the subject and the second NP as the object of the verb. e The Parallel Function strategy was initially proposed 8 to account for English acquisition data, a]thouqh it then skips over that and incorrectly assigns the doq as subject of saw, and fina]]y specifies the boy as object. Thus, the Adjacency strategy makes one error for type SSa. She]don 9 suggests that the number of errors made by the strategy determines the relative processing difficulty of that type of structure. Each strategy generates predictions as to the ease of processing of the eight sentence types. If both Deep and Surface versions of Para]]el Function are tested, five sets of predictions an SSa sentence like \"It fundamental problems associated with this strategy. The first is that it is not clear whether parallel function is to be defined on underlying or surface grammatical roles. In the passives listed above, surface grammatical roles are indicated for all NPs, including relative pronouns. However, each of those could also be interpreted in underlying terms. For example, the relative pronoun is construed as subject in type SSp, although in deep structure terms it is the object. Consequently, two distinct versions of the strategy are possible, one based on surface grammatical relations and the other based on underlying relations. Both versions are tested here. The second problem is conceptual in nature, In particular, the strategy seems to lack any explanatory power, standing only as an isolated statement of certain results, without independent motivation. In fact, even its relevance for the acquisition data has been challenged. 7 Both the Word Order and Interruption strategies were proposed 1\u00b0 to deal with language acquisition phenomena, but both can readily be translated into processing terms, as they have been here. Clearly, neither is language specific, although the Word Order strategy assumes the existence of a \"basic\" or \"normal\" word order, usually assumed to be that of the simple, declarative, affirmative sentence. On quite independent grounds, Givon 4 has argued that the simple, declarative, affirmative sentence type is the most basic in many, if not all, languages precisely because it is presuppositionally the least burdened type. The Word Order strategy predicts that any clause which deviates from the normal form will be more difficult to process than one which does not. The Interruption strategy predicts that any sentence with an internally embedded (interrupting) clause will be more difficult to process than one with an embedded clause at one extremity or the other, Sheldon e noted that the Adjacency strategy is basically an English parsing device which applies blindly across a sentence from left to right, assigning a surface grammatical role to each full NP it encounters, and leaving relative pronouns unanalyzed. She pointed out that the strategy sometimes fails to assign grammatical roles correctly. For example, in follow.</td></tr></table>",
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null
            },
            "TABREF2": {
                "text": "PREDICTIONS FOR EACH STRATEGY",
                "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>The naturalness data were analyzed</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>on the University</td><td>of Alberta's Amdahl</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>470V/5 computer,</td><td>using</td><td>a</td><td>packaged</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>(BMD:O8V) three-way analysis of variance</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>program, with the factors</td><td>of</td><td>subjects,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>syntactic type (four ]eve]s: SS, SO, OS,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>00), and v__gQice (two 1eve]s:</td><td>active</td><td>and</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>passive).</td><td>All</td><td>the main effects were</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>significant</td><td>(~&lt;.01),</td><td>but</td><td>more</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>importantly</td><td>the</td><td>type</td><td>by</td><td>voice</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>interaction</td><td>was also high]y</td><td>significant</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>(F(3,51)=20.48,</td><td>E&lt;.O01),</td><td>with</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>sentences containing</td><td>active</td><td>relative</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>clauses</td><td>judged</td><td>significantly</td><td>more</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>natural than those containing passive</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>relative clauses.</td><td>Consequently, the two</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>groups</td><td>were</td><td>analyzed</td><td>separately.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Planned comparisons were carried out on</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>each group</td><td>to determine which</td><td>types</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>within each group were judged</td><td>to be</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>significantly the more natural.</td><td>Each of</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>the five strategies was tested within</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>the two groups.</td><td>Within</td><td>the</td><td>group</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>containing</td><td>active relative clauses, the</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>only</td><td>significant</td><td>factor</td><td>was</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Interruption,</td><td>with</td><td>types</td><td>OOa and OSa</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Strateqy</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Predictions</td><td>judged significantly</td><td>more natural</td><td>than</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>SSa and SOa (F(3,119)=14,27, ~&lt;.001).</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Deep PF</td><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SSa,SOp,OOa,OSp &gt;</td><td>None of</td><td>the</td><td>Uther</td><td>strategies</td><td>was</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SOa,SSp,OSa,OOp</td><td>operative in this group.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Surface PF</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SSa,OOa,SSp,OOp &gt;</td><td>Within the group containing passive</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">OSa,SOa,OSp,SOp</td><td>relative</td><td>clauses~ the only</td><td>significant</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>factor</td><td>was Word Order.</td><td>The types OSp</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Interruption</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">OOa,OSa,OSp,OOp &gt;</td><td>and SSp, which have a relative</td><td>clause</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SOa,SSa,SSp,SOp</td><td>word</td><td>order</td><td>of</td><td>SVO,</td><td>were</td><td>judged</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>significantly</td><td>easier than types SOp and</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Word Order</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SSa,OSa,SSp,OSp &gt;</td><td>OOp, which have relative</td><td>clause word</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SOa,OOa,SOp,OOp</td><td>order of OSV (L(3,119)=64.60,</td><td>~&lt;.001).</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>These results</td><td>are</td><td>all</td><td>summarized</td><td>in</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Adjacency</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">OSp,OSa</td><td>&gt;</td><td>Table 2.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SSa,OOa,SSp,OOp &gt;</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SOa,SOp</td><td>TABLE 2. ENGLISH NATURALNESS dUDGEMENTS</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"6\">The English Experiment</td><td>Voice</td><td>Naturalness</td><td>Type</td><td>Word Order</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">In order to test the predictions, single experiment was conducted using as a</td><td>Active</td><td>1</td><td>OSa</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">stimuli</td><td colspan=\"4\">56 sentences</td><td colspan=\"2\">in written form,</td></tr><tr><td>with</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">seven</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">separate</td><td>tokens</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">(replications)</td><td/><td>of</td><td colspan=\"2\">each of</td><td>the eight</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">types.</td><td colspan=\"3\">The lexical</td><td colspan=\"3\">items were varied</td><td>Passive</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">across</td><td>all</td><td colspan=\"4\">the sentences.</td><td>The task of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">the subjects, eighteen</td><td colspan=\"2\">native</td><td>speakers</td></tr><tr><td>of</td><td colspan=\"7\">English, was to evaluate each of the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">sentences in terms of relative</td><td>ease of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">comprehension</td><td>or</td><td colspan=\"3\">naturalness</td><td>on a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">nine-point</td><td colspan=\"2\">scale,</td><td>with</td><td>\"1\"</td><td>the most</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">natural or easiest to understand and \"9\"</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">the least.</td><td colspan=\"5\">Subjects were permitted to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">work at</td><td colspan=\"6\">their own rates and were urged</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">to ignore as far as possible the actual</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">lexical</td><td colspan=\"6\">items, focusing their attention</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">rather on the forms of the sentences.</td></tr></table>",
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null
            },
            "TABREF5": {
                "text": "JAPANESE NATURALNESS dUDGEMENTS",
                "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Naturalness</td><td/><td/><td>Type</td><td>Word Order</td></tr><tr><td/><td>1</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>ss</td><td>[0v]s 0 v</td></tr><tr><td/><td>2</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>OS</td><td>S [OV]O V</td></tr><tr><td/><td>3</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>O0</td><td>S [SV]O V</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>s0</td><td>[sv] 0 v</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">The factor separating the first</td><td>two</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">types</td><td colspan=\"2\">from</td><td>the</td><td colspan=\"2\">second pair is clearly</td></tr><tr><td>Word</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Order:</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">sentences</td><td>containing</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">relative</td><td/><td colspan=\"4\">clauses with OV word order are</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">preferred over those containing relative</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">clauses</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">with</td><td>the</td><td>SV</td><td>word order.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">Moreover, within the pair containing</td><td>OV</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">relative</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">clauses,</td><td>Interruption</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">determined that the non-interrupted</td><td>SS</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">type was preferred over the interrupted</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">OS type.</td><td colspan=\"4\">Consequently, in dapanese,</td><td>as</td></tr><tr><td>in</td><td colspan=\"3\">English,</td><td colspan=\"3\">the Word Order strategy is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">the more</td><td colspan=\"3\">important</td><td>of</td><td>the</td><td>two,</td><td>with</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Interruption</td><td colspan=\"3\">only called into operation</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">when the normal word order is met,</td><td>In</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">her study of the acquisition of compound</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">and complex sentences</td><td>in</td><td>dapanese,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Kawashima 5</td><td colspan=\"2\">found</td><td>that</td><td>left-branching</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">structures were mastered before</td><td>those</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">containing</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">center</td><td>embeddings,</td><td>thus</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">supporting</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Interruption</td><td>as the major</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">factor</td><td>in</td><td/><td>the</td><td colspan=\"2\">acquisition of relative</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">clauses.</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null
            }
        }
    }
}