Testing the PR Hypothesis in Greek: The selective role of Tense and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Testing the PR Hypothesis in Greek: The selective role of Tense and Aspect

Nino Grillo

Centro de Lingu´ ıstica da Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Giorgos Spathas

University of Stuttgart Theoretical and experimental approaches to Relative Clauses DGfS Marburg March 5 2014

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

OUTLINE

◮ Asymmetries of attachment preferences for Relative

Clauses (across languages and structures),

◮ PR-first Hypothesis (Grillo, 2012; Grillo & Costa, 2012,

forthcoming)

◮ Pseudo Relatives in Greek ◮ Previous Results (Papadopoulou, 2006; Papadopoulou &

Clahsen, 2003)

◮ A novel experiment testing the role of PR-availability in

Greek

◮ A note on PRs and Locality

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ASYMMETRIES IN RCS ATTACHMENT

Variation in attachment preferences with Relative Clauses (RCs) across languages, Cuetos & Mitchell (1988)

(1) a. Someone shot the maid1 of the actress2 that <EC>2 was standing on the balcony b. Alg´ uien dispar´

• contra la criada1 de la actriz2 que <EC>1

estava en el balc´

• n

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ASYMMETRIES IN ATTACHMENT PREFERENCE

◮ These findings are at odds with uniform LOCAL / low

attachment preference found for other structures in the same languages i.e. strength of local attachment (Phillips & Gibson, 1997).

◮ They lead to question the universality of parsing

principles, in particular of Right Association (Kimball, 1973) / Late Closure (Frazier, 1978) / Recency (Gibson, 1991) / Merge Right (Phillips, 1996);

◮ They pose serious problems to theories of acquisition and

processing (Fodor, 1998a,b).

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ASYMMETRIES IN RC ATTACHMENT

Several factors have been shown to influence attachment, including lexical, prosodic and syntactic. We aim at explaining the residual asymmetries still observable across languages once these factors are controlled for.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

RCS ATTACHMENT PREFERENCE

◮ Several accounts have been proposed to explain these

variations, e.g. the Tuning Hypothesis (Brysbaert & Mitchell, 1996), Construal (Gilboy et al., 1995; Frazier & Clifton, 1996), Predicate Proximity (Gibson et al., 1996), Anaphoric Binding (Hemforth et al., 1998, 2000b,a; Konieczny & Hemforth, 2000), Implicit Prosody (Fodor, 1998a,b)

◮ Substantial agreement that none of these accounts is fully

satisfactory

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

THE ROLE OF PSEUDO RELATIVES

Grillo & Costa (2012) show that previous work on RC attachment overlooked the role of Pseudo Relatives: In some languages (e.g. Spanish) but not in others (e.g. English) the embedded clause can also be read as a Pseudo Relative, i.e. a type of Small Clause: (2) a. Ho visto [PR Gianni che correva]

ITALIAN

I saw I saw [SC John running]

ENGLISH

b. *I saw John that ran

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PSEUDO RELATIVES

V′ visto SC NP1 Giannii CP Spec C′ che VP eci correva

(On PRs see Radford 1975; Graffi 1980; Burzio 1981, 1986; Kayne 1981; Taraldsen 1981; Declerck 1981, 1982; McCawley 1981; Auwera 1985; Guasti 1988, 1992, 1993; Rizzi 1992; Raposo 1989; Cinque 1992; Barros de Brito 1995; Labelle 1996; Rafel 1999; Cˆ

• t´

e 1999; Koenig & Lambrecht 1999; Koopman & Sportiche 2010; Donati & Cecchetto 2011; Casalicchio 2013)

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ASYMMETRIES BETWEEN RCS AND PR/SC

PRs and RCs, despite being string identical, are structurally and interpretively very different:

Property RCs PRs SCs Long distance ‘gap’ ✓ ✗ ✗ Refers to individuals ✓ ✗ ✗ Available w. objects ✓ ✗ ✗ Available w. Rel. Pronouns ✓ ✗ ✗ NP modifier ✓ ✗ ✗ Conjunction with RC ✓ ✗ ✗ Conjunction with SCs ✗ ✓ ✓ Refers to events ✗ ✓ ✓ Available in SC environments ✗ ✓ ✓ Available w. Proper Names ✗ ✓ ✓ VP modifier ✗ ✓ ✓ Aspectual restrictions ✗ ✓ ✓ Tense restrictions ✗ ✓ ✓ Restrictions on matrix V ✗ ✓ ✓

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

OBLIGATORY HIGH ATTACHMENT WITH PRS

→PR READING: DP1 ONLY ACCESSIBLE SUBJECT

(3) Ho Have.I visto seen [PR [ la the figlia1 daughter del

• f.the

postino2 postman che that pro1/*2 run.impf]. correva]. ‘I saw [SC the daughter1 of the postman2 running1/*2].’

V′ saw SC NP1 the daughter1 PP

• f

DP2 the postman2 CP that pro1,*2 ran

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PR-FIRST HYPOTHESIS

Grillo & Costa (2012, forthcoming) (4)

• A. Low Attachment preference is observed, across

languages and structures, with genuine restrictive RCs, i.e. when PRs are not available.

• B. High Attachment preference is observed in

languages and structures which allow for a PR / SC reading (in contexts in which PRs are allowed by the grammar of each particular language). (5) PR-first Hypothesis: When PRs are available, everything else being equal, they will be preferred over RCs. → PRs are structurally and interpretively simpler than RCs

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PR AVAILABILITY AND RC-ATTACHMENT ACROSS

LANGUAGES

Language Attachment PRs English Low * Romanian Low * Basque Low * Chinese Low * Spanish High ✓ Galician High ✓ Dutch High ✓ Italian High ✓ French High ✓ Serbo-Croatian High ✓ Japanese High ✓ Korean High ✓ Greek High ✓ Portuguese High ✓ German High/Low * Russian High/Low * Bulgarian High/Low *

German, Russian and Bulgarian: obligatory Relative Pronoun preceded by comma might induce prosodic break. Alternative explanation under silent prosody / anaphoric binding Fodor (2002b); Hemforth et al. (1996).

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PREVIOUS FINDINGS

Evidence supporting PR-first Hypothesis:

◮ Italian

(Grillo & Costa, 2012, forthcoming)

◮ English

(Grillo et al., 2013a, 2014)

◮ French

(Grillo et al., 2014)

◮ Portuguese (Grillo et al. 2012a,b, 2013a,b; Fernandes 2012; Tomaz 2014) ◮ Spanish

(Grillo et al., 2012b)

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PR-first AND GREEK

◮ Greek classified as HA language (Papadopoulou &

Clahsen, 2003)

◮ Following PR-first we might expect PRs to be available in

Greek.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PRS IN GREEK

PRs are available in Greek (although not identified in the literature so far).

(6) I the Maria Mary evlepe watch.past.imp ton the Jani John.acc pu that etrexe. run.past.imp ‘Mary was watching John running.’

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PRS IN GREEK

Conform to all the tests identified in the literature: They do allow reference to events, are available with proper names, are VP modifiers, show aspectual and tense restrictions, are subject to restrictions on matrix V, are available in SC environments. They do not allow long distance gaps, do not refer to individuals, are not available with objects (unless resumed by clitics) and the relative pronoun o opios, are not NP modifiers.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PRS IN GREEK

Restrictions on matrix verb: PRs are selected by perceptual

• verbs. (i.e. verbs that select for SCs in English, Accusativus

cum Conjunctivo in Greek, Guasti 1993)

(7) a. I the Maria Mary evlepe watch.past.imp ton the Jani John pu that etrexe. run.past.imp. ‘Mary was watching John running.’ b. *I the Maria Mary emene stayed.past.imp me with ton the Jani John pu that etrexe. run.past.imp ‘Mary was staying with John that was running.’ c. I the Maria Mary emene stayed.past.imp me with ton the athliti athlete pu that etrexe. run.past.imp. Mary was staying with the athlete that was running.’

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PRS IN GREEK

Restrictions on tense/ aspect: PRs must describe an interval of time in which the matrix time is included.

(8) a. I the Maria Mary evlepe watch.past.imp ton the Jani John pu that etrexe. run.past.imp. PR ‘Mary was watching John running.’ b. *I the Maria Mary evlepe watch.present.imp ton the Jani John pu that tha fut. treksi. run.perf. ‘Mary was watching John that will run.’ c. I the Maria Mary evlepe watch.past.imp ton the athliti athlete pu that tha fut. treksi. run.perf. ‘Mary was watching the athlete that will run.’

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PR-first IN GREEK

We tested the effects of PR-availability contrasting Globally and Locally ambiguous PR/RC sentences with unambiguous RCs.

◮ Method: Offline Questionnaire, with google questionnaire. ◮ Participants: (n=48) Greek Speakers. ◮ Materials and Design: 24 stimuli in 4 conditions, 72 fillers.

Latin-square design. Counterbalanced materials and questions.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

STIMULI

We manipulated PR-availability in a 2 [Matrix-Verb-Type: perceptual vs. stative] X 2 [Embedded-Tense/Aspect: imperfective.past vs. perfective.future] design. Matrix Vtype Embedded Tense PR-availability

PERCEPTUAL (see)

Match PR/RC ambiguity

PERCEPTUAL (see)

Mismatch Local ambiguity

STATIVE (lives with)

Match Unambiguous RC

STATIVE (lives with)

Mismatch Unambiguous RC

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

STIMULI

A Globally ambiguous PR / RC O Janis evlepe ton filo tu fititi pu etrexe. the John watch.past.imp the friend the.gen student that run.past.imp. `John was watching the friend of the student (that was) running.' B Locally ambiguous PR / RC (RC disambiguation with Tense Mismatch) O Janis evlepe ton filo tu fititi pu tha treksi. the John watch.past.imp the friend the.gen student that fut run.perf. `John was watching the friend of the student that will run.' C Unambiguous RC (Tense Match) O Janis emene me ton filo tu fititi pu etrexe. the John stay.past.imp with the friend the.gen student that run.past.imp. `John was staying with the friend of the student (that was) running.' D Unambiguous RC (Tense Mismatch) O Janis emene me ton filo tu fititi pu tha treksi. The John stay.past.imp with the friend the.gen student that fut run.perf `John was staying with the friend of the student that will run.'

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

RESULTS

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 PR_Tmatch PR_TMismatch RC_Tmatch RC_TMismatch

condition value

Mean HA per Condition

% of High Attachment Preference

perceptual T-Match T-Mismatch stative T-Match T-Mismatch 62.4% 48.5% 30.7% 36.1%

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ANALYSIS

Data were fit with mixed effects logistic regression using the lmer() function of the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2011) of the R analysis program (R core development team). In the main model Vtype and Tense were fit as fixed factors, and subject and items as random factors. Random slopes were fit for both fixed effects and their interaction.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ANALYSIS

→ Significant effect of V-type: > HA with perceptual than stative verbs: contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value HA in PR vs. RC

• 1.5718

0.1978

• 7.947

< .0001 → Significant interaction of Vtype*Tense: contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value Vtype*Tense

• 1.4621

0.3458

• 4.228

<.0001

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ANALYSIS

→ Significant effect of Tense for perceptual verbs only: contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value Tense (perceptual) 1.1090 0.2398 4.625 <.0001 → No effects of Tense with statives (RC-only) condition: contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value Tense (stative)

• 0.3461

0.2783

• 1.243

0.21373

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ANALYSIS

→ Significant effect of Vtype across all conditions

contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value Vtype (matching T)

• 2.2953

0.3064

• 7.492

<.0001 Vtype (mismatching T)

• 0.7728

0.2324

• 3.325

.0008

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

DISCUSSION

◮ Results in line with predictions of PR-first (Grillo & Costa,

2012),

◮ Significant effect of PR-availability (even temporary) ◮ Significant difference between Tmatch and Tmismatch

with PR verbs

◮ No effect of Tense with stative verbs (globally

unambiguous RCs)

◮ Effect of early availability of PR explains relative weakness

• f previous results in English and other LA languages

(around 40% HA still observed)

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

A NOTE ON PR-AVAILABILITY AND LOCALITY

Grillo & Lungu (2014) Compared subject-object relatives introduced by PR-compatible and RC-only verbs (French).

PR RC 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

• bject

subject

• bject

subject

position correct

Mean Correct Anwers

PR-compatible subject

• bject

RC-Only subject object 93.9% 78% 87.1% 81%

→ PR-availability modulates intervention effects!

contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value Vtype*Locality

• 1.4550

0.6703

• 2.171

0.029947 *

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

PR-AVAILABILITY AND SENTENCE TO PICTURE

MATCHING

◮ Cumulative effect of PR-prediction (obligatory subject)

and Locality.

◮ PR-compatible verbs best avoided when testing Locality

effects.

◮ Sentence-to-picture Matching (“show me the N that . . .”) is a

PR-licensing context: Handle with Care!

◮ Might explain tendency to produce (causative-passives)

Subject Relatives (Belletti, this workshop), compatible with PRs / events.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

CONCLUDING REMARKS

◮ Greek further validates PR-first Hypothesis and

Universality of parsing principles.

◮ Local ambiguity (i.e. early PR-availability) still influences

RC attachment (see also English results from Grillo et al. 2014).

◮ SPM: Handle with Care!

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

THANK YOU!

This research is part of the project ‘Syntactic and lexical factors in processing complexity’ funded by the Fundac ¸˜ ao para a Ciˆ encia e a Tecnologia with the research grant PTDC/CLE-LIN/114212/2009 awarded to Nino Grillo. We gratefully acknowledge the FCT contribution.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ANALYSIS OF INTERACTION

Grillo & Lungu (2014) Locality effect only in PR-condition:

contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value Locality (PRverbs) 1.9920 0.5416 3.678 0.000235 *** contrast coefficient SE z-value p-value Locality (RC-only) 0.4413 0.4350 1.014 0.31

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ITALIAN

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 PR RC

attachment

Mean HA per Condition

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

ENGLISH

PR RC 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 nominal verbal nominal verbal

Environment attachment

Mean HA per Condition

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

RC ATTACHMENT IN GREEK

Papadopoulou & Clahsen (2003); Papadopoulou (2006): Asymmetry between genitive (HA) and ‘with’ (LA):

(9) a. Enas kirios fonakse ton fititi tis kathighitrias pu itan apoghoitevmenos apo to neo ekpedheftiko sistima. HA ‘A man called the student of the teacher who was disappointed by the new educational system.’ b. Enas kirios fonakse ton fititi me tin kathighitria pu itan apoghoitevmenos apo to neo ekpedheftiko sistima. LA ‘A man called the student with the teacher who was disappointed by the new educational system.’

Consistent with previous findings (De Vincenzi & Job, 1993; Gilboy et al., 1995)

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

RC ATTACHMENT IN GREEK

HA in genitive condition is readily explained by PR-first Hypothesis. Papadopoulou & Clahsen (2003) experiments contains a high number of PR-taking verbs:

◮ 7 perceptual verbs (over 20 stimuli): ‘look at’ (N=5), ‘watch’

(N=2), i.e. 35% of the stimuli

◮ Other PR-taking verbs: ‘frown-at, greet, like, tease, approach’

This is comparable with previous experiments (see discussion in Grillo & Costa forthcoming)

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

What makes ‘me’ special?

◮ Comitative ‘with’ environment incompatible with PRs. ◮ This explains the asymmetry between genitive and me. ◮ LA in ‘with’ environment also follows from PR-first.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Auwera, J. (1985). The predicate relatives of French perception

• verbs. In A. Bolkstein, C. de Groot, & J. Mackenzie (Eds.),

Predicates and terms in functional grammar (pp. 219–234). Dordrecht: Foris. Barros de Brito, A. M. (1995). Sobre algumas construc ¸ ˜

• es

pseudorelativas em Portuguˆ

• es. L´

ınguas e Literaturas, 12, 23–54. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664–695. Burzio, L. (1981). Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Ph.D. thesis MIT Cambridge, MA. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding

• Approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Casalicchio, J. (2013). Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle variet` a romanze: Affinit` a solo superficiali e corrispondenze strutturali. Ph.D. thesis Universit` a degli Studi di Padova.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Cinque, G. (1992). The Pseudo-Relative and Acc-ing constructions after verbs of perception. In University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics. Universit` a di Venezia. Cˆ

• t´

e, M.-H. (1999). Quantification existentielle sur des ´ ev´ enements et structure des pseudorelatives. In F. Corblin,

• C. Dobrovie-Sorin, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues

in formal syntax and semantics 2 (pp. 169–190). The Hague: Thesus. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing. Cognition, 30, 73–105. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189, 206. Declerck, R. (1981). On the role of progressive aspect in nonfinite perception verb complements. Glossa, 15, 83–113. Declerck, R. (1982). The triple origin of perception verb

• complements. Linguistic Analysis, 10, 1–26.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Donati, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2011). Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 519 – 560. Fernandes, B. (2012). Attachment Preferences in Prepositional Infinitive Constructions. Master’s thesis Centro de Lingu´ ıstica da Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Fodor, J. D. (1998a). Learning to Parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–319. Fodor, J. D. (1998b). Parsing to Learn? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 339–374. Fodor, J. D. (2002b). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 113–132). Amherst: GSLA, University of Massachusetts volume 32. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing

• strategies. Ph.D. thesis U. of Connecticut.

Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Ph.D. thesis Carnegie Mellon University. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing

• mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.

Gilboy, E., Sopena, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in spanish and english complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167. Graffi, G. (1980). Su alcune costruzioni “pseudorelative”. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 5, 115–139. Grillo, N. (2012). Local and universal. In V. Bianchi, & C. Chesi (Eds.), Enjoy Linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the

• ccasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 234–245). Siena, Italy: CISCL

Press. Grillo, N., & Costa, J. (2012). A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. In 25th CUNY Conference

• n Human Sentence Processing. New York, USA.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Grillo, N., & Costa, J. (forthcoming). A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition, . Grillo, N., Fernandes, B., & Costa, J. (2012a). Attachment preferences in Prepositional Infinitive Constructions in European Portuguese. In AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing). Riva del Garda, Italy. Grillo, N., Fernandes, B., & Costa, J. (2012b). Universally local attachment: New evidence from PIC. In ERP Experimental Psycholinguistics Conference. Madrid, Spain. Grillo, N., & Lungu, O. (2014). PR availability modulates intervention effects: Consequences for sentence-to-picture matching paradigm. in preparation. Grillo, N., Santi, A., Fernandes, B., & Costa, J. (2013a). Highs and Lows in English attachment. In 26th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Columbia, South Carolina. Grillo, N., Santi, A., Pozniak, C., & Hemforth, B. (2014). The asymmetric role of pr-taking verbs in RC attachment in English and French. submitted.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Grillo, N., Tomaz, M., Lourenc ¸o Gomes, M., & Santi, A. (2013b). Pseudo relatives vs. Relative clauses: Greater preference, Lower costs. In AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing). Marseille, France. Guasti, M. (1988). La pseudorelative et les ph´ enomen` enes d’accord. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 13, 35–57. Guasti, M. (1992). Progressive in the complements of perception verbs. In Bonomi, Casalegno, & Zwarts (Eds.), Proceedings of the Gargano Conference on “Perceptual Reports”. Guasti, M. (1993). Causatives and perception verbs: a comparative

• study. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.

Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1996). Syntactic and anaphoric processes in modifier attachment. In 9th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000a). Modifier attachment: Relative clauses and coordinations. In

• B. Hemforth, & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German Sentence

Processing (pp. 161–186). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000b). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: Two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (pp. 259–281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 293–312). San Diego: Academic Press. Kayne, R. (1981). Binding, quantifiers, clitics and control. In

• F. Heny (Ed.), Binding and Filtering (pp. 87–102). London:

Croom Helm. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47. Koenig, J.-P., & Lambrecht, K. (1999). French relative clauses as secondary predicates: A case study in construction theory. Unpublished ms. Communication pr´ esent´ ee au 2e Colloque de Syntaxe et S´ emantique de Paris, 17 octobre.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Konieczny, L., & Hemforth, B. (2000). Modifier attachment in

• German. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte

(Eds.), Reading as a Perceptual Process (pp. 517–526). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (2010). The que/qui alternation: New analytical directions. Ms. UCLA. Labelle, M. (1996). Remarques sur les verbes de perception et la sous-cat´

• egorisation. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 25,

83–106. McCawley, J. D. (1981). The syntax and semantics of english relative clauses. Lingua, 53, 99–149. Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Cross-Linguistic Variation In Sentence Processing volume 36 of Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. Springer. Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Phillips, C. (1996). Order and Structure. Ph.D. thesis Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA. Phillips, C., & Gibson, E. (1997). The strength of the local attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 323–346. Radford, A. (1975). Pseudo-relatives and the unity of subject-raising. Archivum Linguisticum, 6, 32–64. Rafel, J. (1999). Complex Small Clauses. Ph.D. thesis Universit` at Autonoma de Barcelona. Raposo, E. (1989). Prepositional Infinitival Constructions in European Portuguese. In J. Osvaldo, & K. J. Safir (Eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 277–305). Kluwer. Rizzi, L. (1992). Direct perception, government and thematic

• sharing. In Bonomi, Casalegno, & Zwarts (Eds.), Proceedings
• f the Gargano Conference on Perceptual Reports.

Taraldsen, T. (1981). The theoretical implications of a class of marked extraction. Theory of Markedness in Generative

• Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.

Attachment & PR PR-first in Greek Experiment PR & Locality References

Tomaz, M. (2014). O processamento de ora¸ c˜

• es relativas e

pseudorelativas: A concordˆ ancia de n´ umero e o fen´

• meno da

atra¸ c˜ ao em Portuguˆ es Europeu. Master’s thesis Universidade de Lisboa.