1

CAS LX 500 Topics in Linguistics: Questions April 28, 2009 Spring 2009 14a: Processing questions

How are questions processed?

We’ve looked at the grammatical issues in questions, how is that grammatical knowledge

put to use?

The problem of parsing

Most of what we’ve considered with respect to the grammar of questions has been more

closely related to production of questions than with perception of questions. Given what

you want to ask, what would it sound like? What’s involved in creating a structural

analysis of what we’re hearing?

I… IP 3 DP I! I 3 (I) (VP) I will… IP 3 DP I! I 3 I (VP) will I will meet… IP 3 DP1 I! I 3 I VP will 3 V (DP) meet

It seems reasonably likely that something like this is how we proceed. Take what we hear,

as we hear it, construct the structure to the extent that we can predict it.

(1) The editors said five words were misspelled.

(2) The committee considered me to be qualified.

2

Given the fact that we are getting words one-by-one, the predictions can sometimes be

wrong. When the prediction is wrong, we need to reanalyze.

Some reanalysis is easy. Some reanalysis is hard.

(3) The mobster kicked in the side fell in pain.

We can get insight into the parsing process by looking at where people slow down when

reading. The Filled Gap Effect.

(4) Who did the children force us to sing songs for yesterday?

One big question: Much of our evidence about the grammar comes from consideration of

sentences that “sound good” and “sound bad.” But, to what extent can “*” be attributed to

parsing and to what extent can it be attributed to the grammar?

(5) a. The mouse stole the cheese.

b. The mouse the cat chased stole the cheese.

c. ?? The mouse the cat the child feeds chased stole the cheese.

d. * The mouse the cat the child the teacher scolded feeds chased stole the cheese.

Another way to think about this: What is the parser doing? What relationship is there

between the parser and the grammar?

For example—islands. Are they about grammar (as we’ve been assuming), or are they

about the parser? Are the islands native speakers linguists consult find problematic due to

parsing?

(6) Who did you hope that the candidate said that he admired __?

(7) a. * Who did the candidate read [a book that praised __ ]?

b. * Who did the candidate wonder [whether the press would denounce __ ]?

c. * Who did [the fact that the candidate supported __] upset voters?

d. * Who did the candidate raise two million dollars [by talking to __]?

An interesting construction in this context is the parasitic gap construction:

(8) a. * What did [the attempt to repair __ ] ultimately damage the car?

b. What did [the attempt to repair the car] ultimately damage __ ?

c. What did [the attempt to repair _pg_ ] ultimately damage __ ?

3

Look: Some gaps are possible inside islands. And if you’re hearing this word-by-word,

and evaluating it incrementally, (8a) is only really ungrammatical at the very end.

(9) What did the attempt to repair ultimately damage (*the car)?

So, certainly it can’t be the case that the parser just throws up its hands and storms away

from sentences with gaps in islands. But how does the gap in the island get there? Is it

posited immediately? If so, the parser has no problems putting gaps in islands, even if it

will turn out later to be ungrammatical. Does the parser wait until the good gap is

constructed, and then go back and put the pg in? But it’s clear that something is missing in

the subject as soon as ultimately is reached.

How quickly can the grammar be used? Does the parser create a rough structure that the

grammar later evaluates, or is the grammar actively involved in the parsing process? (And

if there is a “rough parse” what syntax is it built using? Why do we need two grammars?)

One way to look at this question is to see if grammatical violations are detected

immediately. Is the parser sensitive to islands? Binding theory? Etc.

An early oft-cited study (Stowe 1986) that indicates that the parser is sensitive to islands

found no slowdown in The teacher asked what the silly story about Greg’s older brother

was supposed to mean.

ERP study: McKinnon & Osterhout (1996): While a wh-dependency is pending, the

beginning of an island triggers P600 (syntactic anomaly?) and LAN. So, the parser notices

islands.

Phillips (2005). Off-line judgments (51 undergrads).

(10) a. The outspoken environmentalist worked to investigate what the local

campaign to preserve (the important habitats) had harmed (the annual

migration).

b. The outspoken environmentalist worked to investigate what the local

campaign that preserved (the important habitats) had harmed (the annual

migration).

4

The used-car salesman remembered what the racecar driver said that the skillful mechanic

had fixed. Acceptability average: 4.01.

On-line task. Varied with respect to whether the subject+CNP island contains a finite or

nonfinite verb (to expand vs. expanded), and whether the wh-word could plausibly be the

object of the verb.

The goal: to see whether the parser constructs a wh-dependency upon encountering the

verb.

The predictions: If so, slowdown due to implausibility inside the island. If the parser is

paying attention to where parasitic gaps would be possible, slowdown only in the

infinitival condition.

(11) Plausible infinitival

The school superintendent learned which schools [the proposal to expand

drastically and innovatively upon the current curriculum] would overburden __

during the following semester.

5

(12) Implausible infinitival

The school superintendent learned which high school students [the proposal to

expand drastically and innovatively upon the current curriculum] would

overburden __ during the following semester.

(13) Plausible finite

The school superintendent learned which schools the proposal that expanded

drastically and innovatively upon the current curriculum would overburden __

during the following semester.

(14) Implausible finite

The school superintendent learned which high school students [the proposal that

expanded drastically and innovatively upon the current curriculum] would

overburden __ during the following semester.

The task: Self-paced reading, moving window. Comprehension question success required

for inclusion of data. Feedback provided on correctness. (Success ended up between 89-

95%, no important differences between conditions.)

The1 school2 superintendent3 learned4 which5 schools6 the7 proposal8 to9 expand10

drastically11 and12 innovatively13 upon14 … that9 expanded10

6

So: Plausibility didn’t matter when the verb was finite (and a parasitic gap construction

wouldn’t have been possible), but it did when the verb was nonfinite.

So: The parser is using the grammar incrementally, right away.

Though, cf. Badecker & Straub (2002).

(15) a. John thought that Bill owed him another chance to solve the problem.

b. John thought that Beth owed him another chance to solve the problem.

c. Jane thought that Bill owed him another chance to solve the problem.

d. Jane thought that Beth owed him another chance to solve the problem.

Pronoun resolution: Who is him? Two males in (15a), but one is ruled out by Principle B.

So, if Principle B dictates the options available for pronoun resolution (15a) and (15b)

should be the same. Similarly, we would expect (15c) to be the same (15d), since neither

has a possible antecedent in the sentence.

7

8

Results from an experiment (badly performed for various reasons) in GRS LX 865 a while

back (replicating bits from Badecker & Straub 2002):

9

Faster: Philip assumed that Betsy bought him something nice. (fastest)

Slower: Philip assumed that William bought him something nice.

Faster: Philip assumed that William bought himself something nice.

Slower: Betsy assumed that William bought himself something nice. (slowest)

Looks like:

When processing him, the closest position is considered despite being *Principle B.

When processing himself, the further position is considered, despite being *Principle A.

Back to wh-questions…

Event-related potentials (ERPs).

10

Seems: Grammatically correct, semantically anomalous causes N400 (late centro-parietal

negativity). He spread his warm bread with socks or The girl put the sweet in her pocket

after the lesson. Kind of a “surprise” response.

Syntactic problem: P600 (late posterior positivity)—reanalysis.

Sustained Anterior Negativity (SAN): memory load due to holding a wh-dependency in

memory?

11

Phillips, Kazanina, Abada (2005). Looking at the contribution of the length of the wh-

dependency to 1) P600 timing and magnitude, 2) SAN magnitude.

(16) Short control

The detective hoped that the lieutenant knew that the shrewd witness would

recognize the accomplice in the lineup.

(17) Short wh

The detective hoped that the lieutenant knew which accomplice the shrewd

witness would recognize __ in the lineup.

(18) Long control

The lieutenant knew that the detective hoped that the shrewd witness would

recognize the accomplice in the lineup.

(19) Long wh

The lieutenant knew which accomplice the detective hoped that the shrewd

witness would recognize __ in the lineup.

They found that the amplitude of the P600 wasn’t really different between long and short

dependencies. But the timing was—P600 came later with long dependencies, which

Phillips et al. speculate has to do with reactivation. (Also note that it came without there

having been a syntactic violation.)

With respect to SAN, it’s true that the long-distance dependency showed a greater

negativity. But that was true even in the first clause, when there shouldn’t have been a

difference. Phillips et al. speculate that it might actually have more to do with the fact that

the dependency starts later than that that SAN is larger with longer dependencies.

Following figures represent activity at the final verb (recognize).

12

13

1

4

1

5