Explore the vast range of titles available.

The question of whether there exists a universal subject preference in relativization has stimulated research in a wide range of languages and across different domains, yielding an extensive body of literature in relative clause acquisition and processing. In this article, we aim at consolidating the efforts of existing research in order to inform further exploration of the universality of the subject preference with a comprehensive analysis of relevant work (including journal articles on empirical studies, dissertations, and conference proceedings). We present an overview of the proposals regarding the source(s) of the subject-object asymmetry from a cross-linguistic perspective and discuss commonly used methodologies in this research area, and we survey the research on relative clause processing and acquisition of different linguistic communities, including native speakers, second language learners, clinical populations, and heritage speakers.

The current consensus in the literature of processing of relative clauses states that centre-embedded relative clauses introduce a heavy computational load. While this is well-established, most evidence for it comes from English, while the empirical evidence from many other languages is still lacking. Here, we try to fill this gap by researching the differences in the processing times of centre-embedded and right-branching relative clauses in Slovenian. We report results from a sentence-picture matching task, in which we observe longer reaction times and lower accuracy when the participants are dealing with centre-embedded relative clauses, compared to right-branching ones. This result provides important evidence in a so far largely under-investigated language, contributing to the theoretical claim that the difficulties observed in the processing of centre-embedded relative clauses are language-independent.

I argue that the version of phrase structure theory proposed by Donati and Cecchetto (2011) falls short of accounting for the attested patterns of free relative clauses not only in English but crosslinguistically in general. In particular, I show that free relative clauses can be introduced not only by wh-words like what or where, which is what Donati and Cecchetto predict, but also by wh-phrases like what books or whatever books and their equivalents in other languages, which Donati and Cecchetto explicitly predict not to be possible.

Romanian has an articulated system of (non-)interrogative wh-clauses that look morphosyntactically similar or even identical to each other on the surface, while exhibiting striking differences in distribution and interpretation. Using a minimal set of criteria, tests and distinctions, this article presents the first systematic comparative overview of all clausal wh-constructions attested in Romanian. We show that none of these constructions can be reduced to any of the others and flesh out some of the challenges arising for a unified analysis of wh-constructions and wh-expressions.

Cinque (2020) presents a unified theory positing that various types of relative clauses (RCs) originate from a single, double-headed universal structure via raising or matching. The Frame Noun-Modifying Clause (FRC) as described and analyzed by Matsumoto et al. (2017a, 2017b) presents a significant challenge to Cinque's framework, as it does not conform to any of Cinque's identified RC types, which include amount RCs, kind(-defining) RCs, restrictive RCs and non-restrictive RCs. The FRC eludes derivation via the proposed matching or raising mechanisms. Determining the semantic link between the head noun and the FRC, as well as its external merger position, remains elusive. One might suggest that inserting additional material into the FRC, which incorporates a plausible internal head, could clarify their connection. This approach falls short of providing a systematic and coherent syntactic criterion, relying instead on semantic intuition that lacks operational reliability.

A long-standing question in sentence processing research concerns the online parsing process in clause-boundary garden-path sentences, such as After Mary dressed John bathed . In this sentence, “John” must be parsed as the matrix subject DP but can be locally analysed as the object of the embedded verb. There is considerable evidence that the parser misanalyses these garden-path sentences. However, the controversy lies in whether the parser revises them during the online parsing process. The present study investigated this revision process through two self-paced reading experiments utilising grammatical constraints on reflexives and subject or object relative clauses embedded within the locally ambiguous DP. The results provided evidence of revision when a subject relative clause was embedded but not when an object relative clause was embedded. These findings suggest that the parser assigns grammatical structures that correspond to input strings during the revision of clause-boundary ambiguities but that object relative clauses affect the online revision process.

This article investigates the structural and interpretative properties of relative clauses in Shupamem, an under-studied Grassfields Bantu language of Cameroon, focusing on the integration status of non-restrictive relative clauses, an under-researched aspect of relative clause syntax. We show that non-restrictive relatives have the same properties as restrictive relatives in the language and argue that considerations relating to illocutionary independence, scope relations with matrix negation and intentional verbs, VP ellipsis, pronominalization, binding, weak crossover effects, parasitic gaps, and split antecedents, among others, support the conclusion that Shupamem non-restrictive relatives are clause-internal nominally-integrated syntactic objects, as in Italian and Mandarin Chinese. This finding supports Cinque’s (2008) discovery that non-restrictive relative clauses come in both integrated and non-integrated varieties, and typologically places Shupamem among the languages of the world that exclusively manifest the integrated non-restrictive relative clause structure.

This study investigates first language attrition in the interpretation and processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities among instructed late sequential L1 Spanish–L2 English bilinguals. Traditionally, L1 attrition has been associated with limited L1 use and exposure, along with extensive naturalistic immersion. This study questions these conditions as prerequisites of attrition, examining bilinguals who live in an L1 environment but are extensively exposed to their second language in an instructed, classroom-based university setting. Bilinguals were compared with two native control groups of Spanish and English monolinguals. Results from a picture selection task reveal L1 attrition effects in instructed bilinguals, as they rely less frequently on their L1-preferred disambiguation strategy, i.e., high attachment, when resolving ambiguous relative clauses, particularly in comparison to Spanish monolinguals. Instructed bilinguals also exhibit higher processing when processing ambiguous sentences. Additionally, the study explores whether language dominance modulates attrition effects. We consider the implications of these findings for our understanding of grammatical attrition across different input contexts.

Purpose Relative clauses present a well-known processing asymmetry between object-extracted and subject-extracted dependencies across both typical and atypical populations. The present study aimed at exploring the comprehension of object and subject relative clauses as conceptualized by the Relativized Minimality framework in autistic children and in a group of age- and IQ-matched typically-developing children. The study also explored the way performance in relative clauses would be affected by the children’s language and executive function skills. Method Relative clause comprehension was tested through a sentence-picture matching task and language was tested with a receptive vocabulary task. Executive functions were assessed through backward digit recall and a Flanker test. Results Object relative clauses were harder to parse for both groups than subject relatives, while number mismatch between the moved object Noun Phrase and the intervening subject Noun Phrase in object relatives boosted both groups’ performances. Typically-developing children’s performance in object relatives was predicted by both language and executive functions, while autistic children failed to use language and did not systematically draw on their executive functions in object relative clause comprehension. Conclusion The findings suggest that relative clause processing in autism follows a normal developmental trajectory, and that difficulty with parsing object relative clauses stems from reduced language and executive functions rather than deficits in the children’s morphosyntactic skills.

A Minimalist hypothesis about resumptive pronouns is that they should be no different from ordinary pronouns (McCloskey 2006). The article substantiates this hypothesis with respect to a particular view of pronouns: pronouns are \"elsewhere\" elements. Just as the interpretation of ordinary pronouns, on this view, is determined by competition with anaphors, so the interpretation of resumptive pronouns is determined by competition with gaps. On the basis of new facts in Hebrew and systematic differences between optional and obligatory pronouns, I argue that the tail of a relative clause movement chain is realized as the least specified form available. Since their interpretive properties are fully determined by external factors, resumptive pronouns must be part of the syntactic derivation, not items merged from the (traditional) lexicon.