(derived from @fernadez2003bilingual and @carreiras1993relative).[]{data-label="fig:en_full"}](figures/EN_extension_HIGH_LOW.png){width="8cm"}

There are two possible reasons for this patterning: (1) the models have learned a human-like LOW bias, or (2) the models have a recency bias that favors attachment to the lower nominal. These two hypotheses have overlapping predictions in English. The second hypothesis is perhaps weakened by the results of Section \[synthetic\], where both attachment types were learnable despite any recency bias. However, we know that other syntactic attachment biases can influence RC attachment in humans [@scheepers2003syntactic]. It could be that other kinds of attachment (such as prepositional phrase attachment) have varying proportions of attachment biases in the training data. Perhaps conflicting attachment biases across multiple constructions force the model to resort to the use of a ‘default’ recency bias in cases of ambiguity.

Syntactically blocking low attachment {#rc}
=====================================

Stimuli
-------

To determine whether the behavior of the RNNs is driven by a learned attachment preference or a strong recency bias, we created stimuli[^11] using the stimulus template described in Section \[stimuli\] (e.g., \[en\_full\]). All of these stimuli had only the higher nominal syntactically available for attachment; the lower nominal was blocked by the addition of a relative clause:

. \[RCpair\] . Everybody ignored 