The present corpus study aimed to examine whether Basque (OV) resorts more often than Spanish (VO) to certain grammatical operations, in order to minimize the number of arguments to be processed before the verb. Ueno & Polinsky (2009) argue that VO/OV languages use certain grammatical resources with different frequencies in order to facilitate real-time processing. They observe that both OV and VO languages in their sample (Japanese, Turkish and Spanish) have a similar frequency of use of subject pro-drop; however, they find that OV languages (Japanese, Turkish) use more intransitive sentences than VO languages (English, Spanish), and conclude this is an OV-specific strategy to facilitate processing. We conducted a comparative corpus study of Spanish (VO) and Basque (OV). Results show (a) that the frequency of use of subject pro-drop is higher in Basque than in Spanish; and (b) Basque does not use more intransitive sentences than Spanish; both languages have a similar frequency of intransitive sentences. Based on these findings, we conclude that the frequency of use of grammatical resources to facilitate the processing does not depend on a single typological trait (VO/OV) but it is modulated by the concurrence of other grammatical features.
 Dryer, M. S. (2011). Order of subject, object, and verb. In M. Haspel math, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/chapter/81
 Erdozia, K., Laka, I., Mestres-Misse, A., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2009). Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque. Brain and Language, 109, 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.12.003
 Garnseya, S. M., Pearlmutterb, N. J., Myersa, Elizabeth, & Lotockyc, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Me mory and Language, 37, 58-93. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
 Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 40-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 Hawkins, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and complexity in grammars: Three general principles. In J. Moore, & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory (pp. 121-152). Stanford: CSLI Pub lications, Stanford University.
 Kameyama, M. (1988). Japanese zero pronominal binding: Where syn tax and discourse meet. In W. J. Poser (Ed.), 2nd International Work shop on Japanese Syntax (pp. 47-73). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publica tions.
 Laka, I. (1996). A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language.
 Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical pref erence from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528-553. doi:10.1037/0278-73220.127.116.118
 Prince, E. F. (1999). Subject pro-drop in Yiddish. In P. Bosch, & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computatio nal perspectives (pp. 82-104). Cambridge, CA: Cambridge Universi ty Press.
 Ros, I., Laka, I., Fukumura, K., & Santesteban, M. (2012). Long-be fore-short in head-final languages that agree. The Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference (AMLaP), Uni versidad di Trento.
 Turan, ü. D. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish: Uni versal and language specific properties. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp. 139-161). Oxford: Clarendon Press.