Syntactic and pragmatic constraints on processing relative clauses

Thc oen itninteureasc ttioo nb eo fa pcreangtmraal tiiscs uaen di ns ymnotadcetlisc ocfo nsestnrtaeinnctse processing. It is well established that object relatives (1) are harder to process than subject relatives (2). Passivization, other things being equal, increases sentence complexity. However, one of the functions of the passive construction is to promote an NP into the role of subject so that it can be more easily bound to the head NP in a higher clause. Thus, (3) is predicted to be marginally preferred over (1). Passiviazation in this instance may be seen as a way of avoiding the object relative construction. 1. The pipe that the traveller smoked annoyed the passengers. 2. The traveller that smoked the pipe annoyed the passengers. 3.The pipe that was smoked by the traveller annoyed the 4.The traveller that the pipe was smoked by annoyed the 5.The traveller that the lady was assaulted by annoyed the In (4) we have relativization of an NP which has been demoted by passivization to the status of a by-phrase. Such relative clauses may only be obtained under quite restrictive pragmatic conditions. Many languages do not permit relativization of a constituent as low as a by-phrase on the NP accessibility hierarchy (Comrie, 1984). The factors which determine the acceptability of demoted NP relatives like (4-5) reflect the ease with which the NP promoted to subject position can be taken as a discourse topic. We explored the acceptability of sentences such as (1-5) using pair-wise judgements of samddifferent meaning, accompanied by ratings of easeof understanding. Results are discussed with reference to Gibsons DLT model of linguistic complexity and sentence processing (Gibson, 2000)