Object relatives with postverbal subject in Italian-speaking children and adults: The role of encyclopedic knowledge in detecting sentence ambiguity

References

• Adani, Flavia. 2011. Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: Towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language 38. 141–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adani, Flavia, Heather K. J. Van der Lely, Matteo Forgiarini & Maria Teresa Guasti. 2010. Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua 120(9). 2148–2166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arosio, Fabrizio, Falvia Adani & Maria Teresa Guasti. 2009. Processing grammatical features by Italian children. In José M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró & Jaume Solà (eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation, and acquisition, 138–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arosio, Fabrizio, Maria Teresa Guasti & Natale Stucchi. 2011. Disambiguating information and memory resources in children’s processing of Italian relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40. 137–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avesani, Cinzia & Mario Vayra. 2003. Broad, narrow and contrastive focus in Florentine Italian. In Joe Pater, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Maria-Josep Solé, Daniel Recasens & Ronaldo J. Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, vol. 2, 1803–1806. Adelaide, Australia: Causal Productions.
   Google Scholar
• Bar-Shalom, Eva G., Stephen Crain & Donald Shankweiler. 1993. A comparison of comprehension and production abilities of good and poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics 14(2). 197–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belletti, Adriana & Carla Contemori. 2010. Intervention and attraction: On the production of subject and object relatives by Italian (young) children and adults. In João Costa et al. (eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2009 (39), 39–52. New Castle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Belletti, Adriana & Cristiano Chesi. 2011. Relative clauses from the input: Syntactic considerations on a corpus-based analysis of Italian. Studies in Linguistics CISCL Working Papers, vol. 4, 4–24. Siena, Italy: CISCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Cardinaletti, Anna & Francesca Volpato. 2015. On the comprehension and production of passive sentences and relative clauses by Italian university students with dyslexia. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 223–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, Youngon & John C. Trueswell. 2010. Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 106(1). 41–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crain, Stephen & Janet D. Fodor. 1985. How can grammars help parsers? In David Dowty, Lauri Karttunen & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, 94–128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crain, Stephen, Cecile McKee & Maria Emiliani. 1990. Visiting relatives in Italy. In Lyn Frazier & Jill de Villiers (eds.), Language processing and language acquisition, vol. 10, 335–356. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Dal Farra, Chiara. 2018. Towards a fine-grained theory of focus. Annali di Ca’ Foscari, vol. 52, 39–63. Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.
   Google Scholar
• De Vincenzi, Marica. 1991. Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: The Minimal Chain Principle, vol. 12. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Felser, Claudia, Theodore Marinis & Harald Clahsen. 2003. Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition 11(3). 127–163.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, Lyn & Janet D. Fodor. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6. 291–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, Lyn & Keith Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14(2). 178–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, Naama & Hedva Lavi. 2006. On the order of acquisition of A-movement, Wh-movement and VC movement. In Adriana Belletti, Elisa Bennati, Cristiano Chesi, Elisa Di Domenico & Ida Ferrari (eds.), Language acquisition and development, 211–217. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, Naama, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119(1). 67–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, Naama & Rama Novogrodsky. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language 31(3). 661–681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garraffa, Maria & Nino Grillo. 2008. Canonicity effects as grammatical phenomena. Journal of Neurolinguistics 21(2). 177–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennari, Silvia P. & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2009. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition 111(1). 1–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodluck, Helen & Danijela Stojanovic. 1996. The structure and acquisition of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5(4). 285–315.
   Google Scholar
• Goodluck, Helen & Susan Tavakolian. 1982. Competence and processing in children’s grammar of relative clauses. Cognition 11(1). 1–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick & Marcus Johnson. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27. 1411–1423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick & Marcus Johnson. 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 97–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grodner, Daniel J. & Edward Gibson. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29. 261–291.
   Google Scholar
• Guasti, Maria Teresa, Chiara Branchini, Mirta Vernice, Lina Barbieri & Fabrizio Arosio. 2015. Language disorders in children with Developmental Dyslexia. In Stavroula Stavrakaki (eds.), Specific language impairment: Current trends in research, vol. 58, 35–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Guasti, Maria Teresa & Anna Cardinaletti. 2003. Relative clause formation in Romance child’s production. Probus 15(1). 47–89.
   Google Scholar
• Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini & Luisa Meroni. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5). 667–696.
   Google Scholar
• Guasti, Maria Teresa & Ur Shlonsky. 1995. The acquisition of French relative clauses reconsidered. Language Acquisition 4(4). 257–276.
   Google Scholar
• Hurewitz, Felicia, Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Kristen Thorpe, Lila R. Gleitman & John C. Trueswell. 2000. One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(6). 597–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, Florian T. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 434–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, Evan & Edith L. Bavin. 2005. Lexical and referential cues to sentence interpretation: An investigation of children’s interpretations of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Child Language 32(4). 855–876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, Evan & Edith L. Bavin. 2007. Lexical and referential influences on on-line spoken language comprehension: A comparison of adults and primary-school-age children. First Language 27(1). 29–52.
   Google Scholar
• Kimball, John. 1975. Predictive analysis and over-the-top parsing. In John P. Kimball (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 155–179. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• King, Jonathan & Marcel A. Just. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30(5). 580–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106. 1126–1177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love, Tracy E. 2007. The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: A real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36(3). 191–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, William. 1973. Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244(5417). 522–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKee, Cecile & Dana McDaniel. 2001. Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Language Acquisition 9(2). 113–156.
   Google Scholar
• Meroni, Luisa & Stephen Crain. 2003. On not being led down the kindergarten path. In Barbara Beachley, Amanda Brown & Frances Conlin (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development [BUCLD 27], 531–554. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Omaki, Akira, Imogen Davidson White, Takuya Goro, Jeffrey Lidz & Colin Phillips. 2014. No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development 10. 206–233.
   Google Scholar
• Omaki, Akira & Jeffrey Lidz. 2015. Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 22(2). 158–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pivi, Margherita & Giorgia Del Puppo. 2015. L’acquisizione delle frasi relative restrittive in bambini italiani con sviluppo tipico e con dislessia evolutiva. In Maria Elena Favilla & Elena Nuzzo (eds.), Grammatica applicata: apprendimento, patologie, insegnamento, 59. Milano: AItLA.
   Google Scholar
• Pivi, Margherita, Giorgia Del Puppo & Anna Cardinaletti. 2016. The elicited oral production of Italian restrictive clauses and cleft sentences in typically developing children and children with developmental dyslexia. In Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, Maria Juan-Garau, & Maria P. Larrañaga. (eds.), Acquisition of Romance languages, 231–262. Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
   Google Scholar
• Roland, Douglas, Frederick Dick & Jeffrey L. Elman. 2007. Frequency of English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57. 348–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snedeker, Jesse. 2009. Sentence processing. In Edith Bavin (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language, 321–337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snedeker, Jesse & John C. Trueswell. 2004. The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology 49(3). 238–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snedeker, Jesse & Sylvia Yuan. 2008. Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language 58(2). 574–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. Geneva, Switzerland: University of Geneva dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Staub, Adrian. 2010. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition 116(1). 71–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stowe, Laurie. 1986. Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1. 227–245.
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, Michael, Michael J. Spivey-Knowlton, Kathleen M. Eberhard & Julie C. Sedivy. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268(5217). 1632–1634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, Rosalind J. 1990. Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Storrs dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Thothathiri, Malathi & Jesse Snedeker. 2008. Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year old children. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2). 188–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, Matthew J., Rihana S. Mason, Shelley A. Blozis & Robin K. Morris. 2005. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2). 204–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, Matthew J., Robin K. Morris & Rachel E. Seely. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 69–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, John C., Irina Sekerina, Nicole M. Hill & Marian L. Logrip. 1999. The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73(2). 89–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, John C., Michael Tanenhaus & Susan Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 285–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, John & Lila Gleitman. 2004. Children’s eye movements during listening: Developmental evidence for a constraint-based theory of sentence processing. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world, 319–346. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Utzeri, Irene. 2007. The production and the acquisition of subject and object relative clauses in Italian: A comparative experimental study. Nanzan Linguistics 3. 283–314.
   Google Scholar
• Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1985. Dépendances et niveaux de representation en syntaxe, vol.13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Villiers, Jill de & Thomas Roeper. 1995. Relative clauses are barriers to wh-movement for young children. Journal of Child Language 22(2). 389–404.
   Google Scholar
• Volpato, Francesca. 2010. The acquisition of relative clauses and phi-features: Evidence from hearing and hearing-impaired population. Venice, IT: University of Venice dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, Tessa & Edward Gibson. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1). 79–112.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, Tessa & Edward Gibson. 2005. Effects of NP-type on reading English clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(6). 751–767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar