in the grammatical number of the nominals, repeated from Section \[stimuli\] below.

. \[minimal\] . Andrew had dinner yesterday with the of the teachers that was divorced. \[minimalA\] . Andrew had dinner yesterday with the nephews of the that was divorced. \[minimalB\] . [from @fernadez2003bilingual]

In \[minimalA\] the RC verb (*was*) agrees with the HIGH nominal, while in \[minimalB\] it agrees with the LOW nominal. As such, this minimal pair probes the interpretation bias induced by the relativizer (*that*).

We measure the surprisal of the RC verb (*was*) in both sentences of the pair. If the model has a preference for LOW attachment, then we expect that the surprisal will be smaller when the number of the final noun agrees with the number of the RC verb (e.g., surprisal \[minimalB\] $<$ surprisal \[minimalA\]). Concretely, for each such pair we take the difference in surprisal of the RC verb in the case of HIGH attachment \[minimalA\] from the surprisal of the RC verb in the case of LOW attachment \[minimalB\]. If this difference (surprisal \[minimalA\] - surprisal \[minimalB\]) is positive, then the LM has a LOW bias, and if the difference is negative, the LM has a HIGH bias.

Attachment vs. 