the boy that the girls hated that was boring.\[RCpairA\] . \*Everybody ignored the boys that the girl hated that was boring.\[RCpairB\]

In \[RCpair\] only \[RCpairA\] is grammatical. This follows because *boy(s)* is the only nominal available for modification. In \[RCpairA\], the RC verb *was* agrees in number with this nominal, while in \[RCpairB\], *was* agrees in number with the now blocked lower nominal *girl* rather than with *boys*. For all such sentence pairs, we calculated the difference in surprisal between \[RCpairA\] and \[RCpairB\]. If their behavior is driven by a legitimate syntactic attachment preference, the models should exhibit an overwhelming HIGH bias (i.e. the mean difference should be less than zero).

![Proportion HIGH vs LOW attachment with syntactically unavailable lower nominal. Human results estimated from @linzenleonard18 and RNN LM results from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Extended Data</span> (derived from @fernadez2003bilingual and @carreiras1993relative) with the lower nominal blocked.[]{data-label="fig:en_RC"}](figures/EN_rc_HIGH_LOW.png){width="8cm"}

Results
-------

As before, the differences in surprisal were calculated for each pair of experimental items. If the difference was greater than zero, the attachment was coded as LOW. The results categorically coded for HIGH/LOW attachment are given in Figure \[fig:en\_RC\], including the results expected for humans given the pattern in @linzenleonard18.[^12] A two-tailed t-test 