Connectionist Modeling of Experience-based Effects in Sentence ...

2.4 The RC Extraction Preference in Mandarin
Qiao and Forster (2008)
The divergent results from the studies discussed so far are not necessarily contradictory
because no exactly opposite effects were found in comparable regions. Rather some
studies found effects in places were others did not. Throughout the studies, a subject
preference was only found at the relativizer and head noun region while an object preference
was mainly observed on the region before the relativizer in the embedded RC. Qiao
and Forster (2008) claim both findings to be consistent. They argue that the readers
in Hsiao and Gibson’s and Kuo and Vasishth’s experiments adopted different strategies
that lead to the contradicting results. Following Qiao and Forster two strategies are
possible in SPR experiments: a) a “wait-and-see” strategy where readers do not commit
to a specific structure in the early sentence and b) a more careful processing of the RC.
Effects that may be delayed in the first strategy would show up in the second. In particular,
in the careful strategy the SRC structure should be recognized, causing higher
difficulty. This would, on the other hand, decrease the difficulty at the relativizer and
the head noun because no reanalysis takes place. Qiao and Forster used the Maze Task 2
(Forster, Guerrera, and Elliot, 2008), which forced readers to adopt the more careful
strategy. The results showed an object preference in the relative clause (as in Hsiao
and Gibson, 2003) and a subject preference at the relativizer (consistent with Kuo and
Vasishth, 2007). Overall a slight advantage for the ORC was found. The explanation
offered by Qiao and Forster is that in in Kuo and Vasishth’s study readers adopted
the wait-and-see strategy which avoided the difficulties in the SRC. This means that
readers do not really predict a main clause in the online-reading of an SRC as stated
by the Elided Subject Assumption; readers rather do not make any prediction at all.
Considering that the subject preference on the relativizer was not significant by items,
the results are consistent with Hsiao and Gibson’s data. It is, however, not clear why
the participants in Hsiao and Gibson’s study adopted a different parsing strategy than
the readers in Kuo and Vasishth’s study, when both used the same method.
Summary
Many issues of Hsiao and Gibson’s initial study were subject to critique. However,
subsequent results were equally distributed between object and subject preference. See
table 2.4 for a summary of the results gained for the RC extraction preference in Chinese
Mandarin. The table also shows which of the discussed theories are consistent with the
studies. Storage Cost under the Elided Subject Assumption (SC+ES) is not consistent
with any study. Recall that the theory would predict a no effect in the RC region and an
object advantage on the relativizer and head noun. This does not fit any of the empirical
findings. The Active Filler Strategy is omitted in the table because it does not make
2 In the Maze Task the reader has to choose between two words at each point in the sentence. Only
one of the two words is a grammatical continuation. The reader is thus forced to predict a complete
structure.
37