A quantitative investigation of the ellipsis of English relativizers

References

Anthony, Laurence. 2020. AntConc (version 3.5.9). Computer software. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson.Suche in Google Scholar

Chaves, Rui P. & Mike Putnam. 2020. Unbounded dependency constructions: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198784999.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & George A. Miller. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Robert D. Luce, Robert R. Bush & Eugene Galanter (eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, 269–321. New York: Wiley.Suche in Google Scholar

Clifton, Charles & Lyn Frazier. 1989. Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Greg N. Carlson & Michael K. Tanenhaus (eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing, 273–317. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2729-2_8Suche in Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter W. 2013. Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486531Suche in Google Scholar

Fang, Yinjie. 2017a. A collexeme analysis of relativizer omission: Comparing Chinese EFL learners to native speakers of English. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 2017(3). 100–108.Suche in Google Scholar

Fang, Yinjie. 2017b. A multifactorial analysis of relativizer omission by Chinese EFL learners. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Fang, Yinjie & Maocheng Liang. 2019. A comparable context-based multifactorial analysis of relativizer omission by Chinese EFL learners and native speakers of English. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 51(3). 435–446.Suche in Google Scholar

Fang, Yinjie & Maocheng Liang. 2020. A study of relativizer omission by Chinese EFL learners: Triangulating corpus and experimental approaches. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 2020(3). 34–43.Suche in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Victor S. & Gary S. Dell. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40(4). 296–340. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730.Suche in Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry A. & Merrill F. Garrett. 1967. Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Attention Perception & Psychophysics 2(7). 289–296. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211044.Suche in Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31(2). 293–326. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox.Suche in Google Scholar

Gebhardt, Kilian, Mark-Jan Nederhof & Heiko Vogler. 2017. Hybrid grammars for parsing of discontinuous phrase structures and non-projective dependency structures. Computational Linguistics 43(3). 465–520. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00291.Suche in Google Scholar

Gerdes, Kim, Bruno Guillaume, Sylvain Kahane & Guy Perrier. 2018. SUD or surface-syntactic universal dependencies: An annotation scheme near-isomorphic to UD. Paper presented at the Second workshop on universal dependencies (UDW 2018). Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/W18-6008Suche in Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1.Suche in Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita Yasushi, Marantz Alec & O’Neil Wayne (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95–126. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3654.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar

Hamilton, Robert L. 1994. Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning 44(1). 123–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01451.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Hays, David G. 1960. Basic principles and technical variations in sentence structure determination. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Suche in Google Scholar

Heringer, Hans-Jürgen, Bruno Strecker & Rainer Wimmer. 1980. Syntax: Fragen-Lösungen-Alternativen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Suche in Google Scholar

Hildebrand, Joyce. 1987. The acquisition of preposition stranding. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32. 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008413100012020.Suche in Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 1995. Calculating syntactic difficulty. Unpublished manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2010. An introduction to word grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511781964Suche in Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, David Denison & Gerold Schneider. 2012. Relative complexity in scientific discourse. English Language and Linguistics 16(2). 209–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674312000032.Suche in Google Scholar

Izumi, Shinichi. 2003. Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clause by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning 53(2). 285–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00218.Suche in Google Scholar

Jaeger, Tim Florian. 2005. Optional that indicates production difficulty: Evidence from disfluencies. Paper presented at DiSS ’05, disfluency in spontaneous speech workshop. Aix-en-Provence, France: Université de Provence.Suche in Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Suche in Google Scholar

Jing, Yingqi & Haitao Liu. 2015. Mean hierarchical distance: Augmenting mean dependency distance. In Eva Hajičová & Joakim Nivre (eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2015), 161–170. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Suche in Google Scholar

Karlsson, Fred. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43(2). 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226707004616.Suche in Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.10.4324/9781315880259-11Suche in Google Scholar

Kraljic, Tanya & Susan E. Brennan. 2005. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology 50(2). 194–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.08.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Levy, Roger, Evelina Fedorenko, Mara Breen & Edward Gibson. 2012. The processing of extraposed structures in English. Cognition 122. 12–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.012.Suche in Google Scholar

Lewis, Richard L. & Shravan Vasishth. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29(3). 375–419. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25.Suche in Google Scholar

Lewis, Richard L., Shravan Vasishth & Julie A. Van Dyke. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10). 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Haitao. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science 9(2). 159–191. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Haitao. 2009. Yicun yufa de lilun yu shijian [Dependency grammar from theory to practice]. Beijing: Science Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Haitao. 2017. The hierarchical distribution of sentence structures. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 49(3). 345–352.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Haitao. 2018. Language as a human-driven complex adaptive system. Physics of Life Reviews 26(27). 149–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2018.06.006.Suche in Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian & Csaba Pléh. 1988. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29. 95–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90034-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Marcus, Solomon. 1967. Algebraic linguistics: Analytical models. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Marefat, Hamideh & Ramin Rahmany. 2009. Acquisition of English relative clauses by Persian EFL learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 5(2). 21–48.Suche in Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Miller, George A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2). 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.Suche in Google Scholar

Nivre, Joakim. 2006. Inductive dependency parsing. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-4889-0Suche in Google Scholar

Nivre, Joakim. 2015. Towards a universal grammar for natural language processing. Paper presented at the International conference on computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. Cairo, Egypt: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-18111-0_1Suche in Google Scholar

O’Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 279–312.10.1023/A:1005932710202Suche in Google Scholar

Osborne, Timothy & Kim Gerdes. 2019. The status of function words in dependency grammar: A critique of universal dependencies (UD). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.537.Suche in Google Scholar

Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam & Thomas Groß. 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4). 354–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00172.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Osborne, Timothy & Thomas Groß. 2012. Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1). 165–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0006.Suche in Google Scholar

Peters, Pam. 1994. The Cambridge Australian English style guide. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph & Charles L. Wrenn. 1957. An Old English grammar. London: Methuen.Suche in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Svartvik Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Race, David S. & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2003. The use of “that” in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses. Paper presented at the 26th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar

Reali, Florencia & Morten H. Christiansen. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57(1). 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014.Suche in Google Scholar

Roland, Douglas, Jeffrey L. Elman & Victor S. Ferreira. 2006. Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 98(3). 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.008.Suche in Google Scholar

Sigley, Robert. 1997. The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1(2). 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674300000514.Suche in Google Scholar

Street, James A. 2017. This is the native speaker that the non-native speaker outperformed: Individual, education-related differences in the processing and interpretation of object relative clauses by native and non-native speakers of English. Language Sciences 59. 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.10.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Temperley, David. 2003. Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language 79(3). 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0189.Suche in Google Scholar

Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structural. Paris: Klincksieck.Suche in Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 1995. The man Ø I love: An analysis of factors favouring zero relatives in written British and American English. In Melchers Gunnel & Warren Beatrice (eds.), Studies in anglistics, 201–215. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Suche in Google Scholar

Uddén, Julia, Dias Martins Mauricio de Jesus, Willem Zuidema & William Tecumseh Fitch. 2020. Hierarchical structure in sequence processing: How to measure it and determine its neural implementation. Topics in Cognitive Science 12. 910–924.10.1111/tops.12442Suche in Google Scholar

Uhlírová, Ludmila. 1972. On the non-projective constructions in Czech. In Petr Sgall (ed.), Prague studies in mathematical linguistics 3, 171–181. Prague: Prague Academia.Suche in Google Scholar

Wasow, Thomas, Tim Florian Jaeger & David M. Orr. 2011. Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In Horst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, 175–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219098.175Suche in Google Scholar

Yan, Jianwei & Haitao Liu. 2019. Which annotation scheme is more expedient to measure syntactic difficulty and cognitive demand? Paper presented at the First workshop on quantitative syntax (Quasy, SyntaxFest 2019). France, Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3.10.18653/v1/W19-7903Suche in Google Scholar

Yan, Jianwei & Haitao Liu. 2021. Semantic roles or syntactic functions: The effects of annotation scheme on the results of dependency measures. Studia Linguistica. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12177.Suche in Google Scholar

Zeman, Daniel, Ondřej Dušek, David Mareček, Martin Popel, Loganathan Ramasamy, Štěpánek Jan, Zdeněk Žabokrtský & Hajič Jan. 2014. HamleDT: Harmonized multi-language dependency treebank. Language Resources and Evaluation 48(4). 601–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9275-2.Suche in Google Scholar

Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Suche in Google Scholar