Özet
In this study, the processing of attachment preferences to relative clauses (RC) in Turkish was analyzed through an eye-tracking technique and comprehension questions presented following each experimental sentence. Within this general framework, the possible effects of the RC types (subject - object) on the processing of attachment types (low – high – high with ambiguity) and whether there was any RC asymmetry were examined. The data obtained from a total of sixty participants were analyzed in the study. Forty-two experimental sentences were developed based on two RC types and three attachment types as low, high and high with ambiguity. Therefore, in the study six conditions were tested along with forty-two filler sentences which were employed to distract the participants’ attention away from the investigated structures. The Kolmogorow Smirnow test showed that the data exhibited a normal distribution. For two-way comparisons, an independent t-test was used and for three-way comparisons, the ANOVA (Analysis Of Variance) was employed. Certain differences between the two attachment types were observed. General direction of processing seemed to be that the High Attachment configuration caused slightly less cognitive load than the Low Attachment. However, the High Attachment sentences exhibited statistically significant longer reading durations on NP2 (the second noun phrase following the RC area). Therefore, it was assumed that the parser was sensitive to lexical/semantic properties of the incoming words of the given sentences during the initial processing. The processing of the main verb was another point of divergence. Significantly longer fixation durations on main verbs were observed in Low Attachment sentences, which also suggest that they included an implicit ambiguity. It was revealed that the main strategy of the parser to repair an ambiguity in High Attachment sentences was using the argument structure of the main verb. It acted as an error signal prompting the parser to adjust its syntactic preferences. It was found out that for all attachment types, on the RC Area of Interest (AoI) the object RCs are read with longer durations. However, statistically significant differences were not found. Considering the whole sentences, on the other hand, statistically significant results were found where participants spent longer durations for the processing of the object RCs. When analyzed alone, the subject RCs was comparatively easier for the parser to process than the object RCs. This is attributed to longer structural distance between the head noun and the extraction site besides linguistic-specific properties of Turkish in which the ORCs were inflected for person agreement, which caused extra processing load. Regarding the answers to the comprehension questions, the data complements the findings from online processing. The answers to the comprehension questions following High Attachment sentences had statistically the highest accuracy level. On the other hand, the comprehension questions following the High Attachment with Ambiguity sentences had statistically the lowest accuracy rate. Considering the answers to the comprehension questions concerning the subject and object RC sentences, it was observed that the comprehension questions concerning the subject RC sentences were statistically answered more successfully. It is suggested that For Turkish parser, the early processing is dominated by syntactic operations. However, it is overridden by lexical-semantic information of the main verb when it is led into a Garden-path situation. High Attachment sentences take the parser shorter to process compared to the Low Attachment sentences. Therefore, it is suggested that Turkish is a High Attachment language. Considering the reading times, Low Attachment sentences also include a local ambiguity as in High Attachment with Ambiguity. Finally, Cognitive load of ORCs is heavier than SRCs in all attachment types except for RC AoI. ORC asymmetry is also observed across all the experimental items regardless of attachment types, which is predicted by Structural Distance Hypothesis (SDH) (O’Grady, 2003).
Künye
Abdelghany, H. and Fodor, J.D. (1999). Low attachment of RCs in Arabic. Poster presented at AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing ) 1999, Edinburgh, UK, September, (pp. 23–25).
Abney, S.P. (1989). A computational model for human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18: 129–144.
Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, (pp. 295-315).
Baccino, T., De Vincenzi, M. and Job, R. (2000). Cross-linguistic studies of the late closure strategy: French and Italian. In M. De Vincenzi and V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing (pp. 89-118). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner, and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Betancort, M., Carreiras, M., and Sturt, P. (2009). The processing of subject and object relative clause in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, (pp. 1915-1929).
Bever, T. G., and McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, (pp. 35-43).
Blumenthal, A. L. (1987). The emergence of psycholinguistics. Synthese, 72, (pp. 313–323).
Brysbaert, M. and Mitchell, D. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49: (pp. 664–695).
Bulut, T. (2012). Processing Asymmetry in Turkish Subject and Object Relative Clauses. Unpublished master‘s thesis, Hacettepe 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).
Carreiras, M. and Clifton, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36: (pp. 353–372).
Carreiras, M. and Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses; Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, 27: (pp. 826–833).
Carreiras, M., Dunabeitia, J.A., Vergara, M., de la Cruz-Pavia, I., and Laka, I., (2010). Subject Relative Clauses are not Universally Easier to Process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition 115, (pp. 79-92).
Chen, B.G., Ning, A.H., Bi, H.Y., and Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese Subject-Relative Clauses are more Difficult to Process than the Object-Relative Clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129, (pp. 61-65).
Chien-Jer, C.L., and Bever, T. (2006). Subject Preference in the Processing of Relative Clauses in Chinese. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, and M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, (pp. 254-260).
Cohen, L., and Mehler, J. (1996). Click Monitoring Revisited: An On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 24, (pp. 94-102).
Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Crocker, M. (1996). Computational Psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Crocker, M. W. (2014, November 5). Computational Psycholinguistics Lecture 2: Syntactic Processing. Retrieved from http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/~crocker/documents/Lecture2.pdf
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).
Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., and Corley, M. M. B. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J. E. García-Albea, and N. SebastiánGallés (Eds.), Language Processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Culy, C. (1990). The Syntax and Semantics of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Unpublished master’s thesis, Standford University.
De Vincenzi, M. and Job, R. (1993). Some Observations on the Universality of the Late Closure Strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22: (pp. 189–206).
De Vincenzi, M. and Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late-closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21: (pp. 1303–1321).
De Vries, M. (2001). Patterns of Relative Clauses. Linguistics in the Netherlands 18, (pp. 231-243).
De Vries, M. de. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
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.
Downing, B. (1978). Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure. In J. Greenberg (ed) Universals of Human Language. Volume 4. Syntax. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, (pp. 375-418).
Ekmekçi,Ö. (1990). Acquisition of relativization in Turkish. Paper presented at Fifth International Conference on Turkish linguistics, SOAS, London University, London.
Ehrlich, K., Fernández, E., Fodor, J.D., Stenshoel, E. and Vinereanu, M. (1999). 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, NY, March 18–20 1999.
Eymen, U. E. (2007). SPSS Kullanma Kılavuzu. İstatistik Merkezi Yayın.
Fernández, E.M. (2003). Bilingual Sentence Processing: Relative Clause Attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Ferreira, F. and Clifton, C. (1986). The İndependence of Syntactic Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25: (pp. 348–368).
Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, (pp. 725–745).
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.
Fodor, J. D., and Inoue, A. (1998). Attach Anyway. In J. D. Fodor and F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing (pp. 101–141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fodor, J.D. (1998). Learning to Parse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27, (pp. 285-319).
Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., and Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring Around the Relative Clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 328-337.
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. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism In D. Balota, G.B. Flores D’ Arcais, K. Rayner, Comprehension Processes in Reading (pp. 303–330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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).
Frazier, L., and Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., and d’Arcais, F. G. (1989). Filler-driven parsing : A study of gap-filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, (pp. 331–344).
Frenck-Mestre, C. and 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: Kluwer Academic.
Friedman, M. (1937). The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance", Journal of the American Statistical Association C.32 No.200. (pp. 675–701).
Friedman, M. (1939). "A correction: The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance" Journal of the American Statistical Association C.34 No.109 issue.109.
Friedman, M. (1940). "A comparison of Alternative Tests of Significance for the Problem of M Rankings", The Annals of Mathematical Statistics C.11 No.1 issue. (pp. 86–92).
Garnham, A., Garrod, S. and Sanford, A. (2006). Observations on the Past and Future of Psycholinguistics. In: Traxler, M.J. and Gernsbacher, M.A.(eds.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Elsevier/Academic Press: Amsterdam. ISBN 9780123693747
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. (1998). Linguistic Complexity: Locality of Syntactic Dependencies. Cognition, 68, (pp. 1-76).
Gibson, E., Hickok, G., and Schutze, C. T. (1994). Processing Empty Categories: A Parallel Approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, (pp. 381-405).
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. and Torrens, V. (1999). Recency and Lexical Preferences in Spanish. Memory and Cognition, 27(4) (pp. 603–611).
Gibson, E., Perlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzales, E., and Hickok, G. (1996). Recency Preference in the Human Sentence Processing Mechanism. Cognition, 59(1), (pp. 23-59). doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00636-Y.
Gilboy, E. and Sopena, J.M., Clifton, C. and Frazier, L. (1995). Argument Structure and Association Preferences in Spanish and English Compound NPs. Cognition, 54, (pp. 131–167).
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax, a Functional-Typological Approach, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Göksel, A., and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
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).
Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gouvea, A. C. (2003). Processing Syntactic Complexity: Cross-Linguistic Differences and ERP Evidence, University of Maryland, College Park.
Grosu, A. and Landman, F. (1998). Strange Relatives of the Third Kind. Natural Language Semantics 6, (pp. 125-170).
Hankamer, J. and Knecht, L. 1976. The Role of the Subject/Non-Subject Distinction in Determining the Choice of Relative Clause Participle in Turkish. In: Hankamer, J. and Assen, J. (eds.) Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University. (pp. 197-219).
Harley, T. (2001). The Psychology of Language. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L. and Scheepers, C., (1996). Syntactic and Anaphoric Processes in Modifier Attachment. Poster presented at the 9th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY, March 21–23 1996.
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.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Seelig, H. and Walter, M. (1999). Case Matching and Relative Clause Attachment. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing , New York, NY, March 18–20 1999.
Hollander, M., and Wolfe, D. A. (1973). Nonparametric Statistics, New York: J. Wiley.
Holmes, V. M., and O‘Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, (pp. 417-430).
Hsiao, F., and Gibson, E. (2003). Processing Relative Clause in Chinese. Cognition, 90, (pp. 3-27).
Ishizuka, T. (2005). Processing Relative Clauses in Japanese. In R. Okabe and K. Nielsen (Eds.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, no.13, Papers in Psycholinguistics, 2, (pp. 135-157).
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
Kahraman, B (2015). Processing Turkish Relative Clauses in Context. In D. Zeyrek, Ç.S. Şimşek and U. Atas (eds.)
Kahraman, B. (2010). Incremental Processing of Gap-Filler Dependencies in Turkish: Focusing on the Processing Asymmetry between Subject and Object Relative Clauses. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, Part 2. Vol. 59, 239-248.].
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.
Keenan, E. (1985). Relative Clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume 2: Complex Constructions, (p. 141-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kempe, V. and Radach, R. (1993). RC attachment preferences in Russian. Ms.
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).
Kess, J., F. and Miyamoto, T. (1999). The Biological Bases of Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series, No. 13, (pp. 147-188).
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven Principles of Surface Structure Parsing . Cognition 2(1).
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).
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).
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).
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.
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P., Kluender, R., and Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and Linguistic Factors Affecting Subject/Object Asymmetry: An Eye-Tracking Study of Prenominal Relative Clauses in Korean.
Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., and Kluender, R. (2006). Subject Preference in Korean. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, and M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 1-14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Lehmann, C. (1984). Der Relativsatz. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen
Lin, C.-J., and Bever, T.G. (2006). Chinese is no Exception: Universal Subject Preference of Relative Clause Processing. Paper presented at the The 19th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. New York: CUNY Graduate Center.
Lin, Y. and Garnsey, S.M. (2011). Animacy and the Resolution of Temporary Ambiguity in Relative Clause Comprehension in Mandarin. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, J. L. Packard (Eds.), Processing and Producing Head-final Structures (pp. 241-275). Springer Netherlands.
Logacev, P., and Vasishth, S. (2013). em2: A package for Computing Reading Time Measures for Psycholinguistics. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=em2
MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N. and Seidenberg, M. (1994b). Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution as Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. In C Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp. 123–153).
MacDonald, M.C. (1993). The Interaction of Lexical and Syntactic Ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, (p. 692–715).
MacDonald, M.C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, (pp. 195–201).
MacDonald, M.C. (1997). Lexical Representations and Sentence Processing : An Introduction. Language and Cognitive processes, 12(2/3), (pp. 121–136).
MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N. and Seidenberg, M.S. (1994a). The Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological review, 101, (pp. 676–703).
MacWhinney, B. and Bates, E. (eds.) 1989. The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing . Cambridge: CUP.
Mak, P., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. (2002). The Influence of Animacy on Relative Clause Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, (pp. 50-68).
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in Processing Relative Clauses: The Hikers that Rocks Crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, (pp. 466-490).
McElree, B., and Bever, T. G. (1989). The Psychological Reality of Linguistically Defined Gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, (pp. 21-35).
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, (pp. 283-312).
Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., and Friederici, D. (1995). Processing Relative Clauses Varying on Syntactic and Semantic Dimensions: An Analysis with Event-Related Potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, (pp. 477-494).
Meringer R and Mayer C (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen: Eine Psychologisch-Linguistische Studie. Stuttgart: G. J. Göschen. [New edition, with an introduction by A. Cutler and D. A. Fay, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1978.]
Mitchell, D. and Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to Recent Theories of Cross-Linguistic Variation in Parsing: Evidence from Dutch. In D. Hillert (ed.), Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic perspective. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31 (pp. 313–335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mitchell, D., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S. and 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.Oxford: Elsevier.
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.
Miyamoto, E. T., Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Aikawa, T. and Miyagawa, S. (1999). A U-shaped Relative Clause Attachment Preference in Japanese, Language and Cognitive Processes, 14:5-6, (pp. 663-686).
Miyamoto, E.T. (1998). Relative Clause Attachment in Brazilian Portuguese. Unpublished manuscript, Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Nicol, J., and Pickering, M. J. (1993). Processing Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences: Evidence from Semantic Priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, (pp. 207-237).
Nicol, J., and Swinney, D. (1989). The Role of Structure in Coreference Assignment during Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, (pp. 5-19).
O‘Grady, W., Miseon, L., and Miho, C. (2003). A Subject-Object Asymmetry in the Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Korean as a Second Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, (pp. 433-448).
Osgood, C. E., and Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.). (1965). Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems (pp. 93–101). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Özçelik, Ö. (2006). Processing Relative Clauses in Turkish as a Second language. Unpublished Master‘s Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
Özge, D., Marinis, T., and 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, (pp. 1230-1243).
Öztürk, B. T. and Erguvanlı E. (2016) Possessive Constructions in Turkish. Lingua. 182, (pp. 88-108).
Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Cross-Linguistic Variation in Sentence Processing volume 36 of Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. Springer.
Peranteau, P. et al. (eds.) (1972). The Chicago Which Hunt. Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
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).
Pickering, M. J., and Traxler, M. J. (2001). Strategies for Processing Unbounded Dependencies: First-Resort vs. Lexical Guidance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, (pp. 1401-1410).
Pickering, M. J., Clifton, C. Jr., and Crocker, M. W. (2000). Architectures and Mechanisms in Sentence Comprehension.
Pritchett, B.L. 1988. Garden-Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing . Language, 64: (pp. 539–576).
Pritchett, B.L. 1992. Parsing with Grammar: Islands, Heads, and Garden Paths. In H. Goodluck, and M. Rochemont (eds.), Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition, and Processing (pp. 321–349). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Qiao, X., Shen, L., and Forster, K. (2012). Relative Clause Processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the Maze Task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27:4, (pp. 611-630).
Radford, A. (2009). Analysing English Sentences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 years of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, (pp. 372-422).
Rayner, K., Smith, T. J., Malcolm, G. L., and Henderson, J. M. (2009). Eye movements and visual encoding during scene perception. Psychological Science, 20(1), (pp. 6-10).
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.
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., and Kühn, K. (1995). The Processing of Locally Ambiguous Relative Clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, (pp. 499-520).
Sekerina, I. A., Fernández, E. M. and Petrova K. A. (2004) Relative Clause Attachment in Bulgarian. In Arnaudova, O., Browne, W., Rivero, M. L., and Stojanović, D. (Eds.) The Proceedings of the 12th Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Ottawa Meeting 2003. (pp. 375-394.) Michigan Slavic Publications. (in .doc).
Smits, R. (1988). The Relative and Cleft Constructions of the Germanic and Romance Languages. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tilburg. Dordrecht: Foris.
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).
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).
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.
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).
Trask, R. L. (1999). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge.
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).
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).
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).
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.
Ueno, M., and Garnsey, S. (2008). An ERP Study of the Processing of Subject and Object Relative Clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, (pp. 646-688).
Underhill, R. (1974). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, (pp.87–99).
Walter, M., Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L. and Seelig, H. (1999). Same Size Sisters in German. Poster Presented at the 12th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY, March 18–20 1999.
Waters, G. S., and Caplan, D. (1992). The Capacity Theory of Sentence Comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter. Psychological Review, 103, (pp. 761-772).
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).
Weinberg, A. (2001). A Minimalist Theory of Human Sentence Processing. In S.P. Epstein, N. Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wijnen, F. (1998). Dutch Relative Clause Attachment in two- and three-site Contexts. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence.
Yarar, E. (2005). Yardımcı Eylem İçeren Özne Ortaçlarının Belirsizlikten Kaçınma İlkesine Göre Betimlenmesi. In: İ. Ergenç, S. İşsever, S. Gökmen, and Ö. Aydın (Eds.), Dilbilim incelemeleri. (pp. 132-141), Ankara: Doğan Yayıncılık.
Yarbay Duman, T., Aygen, G, and Bastiaanse, R., (2008). The Production of Turkish Relative Clauses in Agrammatism: Verb Inflection and Constituent Order, Brain and Language, 105: 3, (pp.149-160).
Zagar, D., Pynte, J. and Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for Early Closure Attachment on First-pass Reading Times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, (pp. 421–438).
