More Incrementality I.Pronoun Reference II.Language Production.

Japanese pronouns and their antecedents

Verb

the man-nom

NP-dat

which of his children



Verb

the man-nom

NP-dat


NP-dat




Verb

the man-nom

NP-dat


NP-dat


Verb

NP-nom



the man-dat


** ??



Gender Mismatch

the woman

the woman

Gender Mismatch paradigm: Carreiras et al. (1996); Osterhout et al. (1997); Sturt (2003)

Conditionsa. Scrambled - Gender Mismatch

Adverb / [his / which NP]-dat / Adverb / NP FEMALE-nom / Adverb / NP-acc /

verb-Q / NPMALE-top / verb

b. Scrambled - Gender Match

Adverb / [his / which NP]-dat / Adverb / NP MALE-nom / Adverb / NP-acc /

verb-Q / NPFEMALE-top / verb

c. Non-scrambled - Gender Mismatch

Adverb / [his / which NP]-nom / Adverb / NP FEMALE-dat / Adverb / NP-acc /

verb-Q / NPMALE-top / verb

d. Non-scrambled - Gender Match

Adverb / [his / which NP]-nom / Adverb / NP MALE-dat / Adverb / NP-acc /

verb-Q / NPMALE-top / verb.

Results: Scrambled conditions

Slowdown at mismatching NP is observed.

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Region

Scrambled, match

Scrambled, mismatch

F1(1, 39) = 8.6, p<.01;F2(1,23)=7.4, p<.01

± Match

his/her

Results: Non-scrambled conditions

Slowdown at mismatching NP only when NP is possible antecedent.

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Region

Unscrambled, match

Unscrambled, mismatch

Fs<1± Match

his/her

English

Immediate Constraint Application

While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills.While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills.

While she …Jessica …

Russell …

Self-Paced Reading, Gender Mismatch Paradigm

(Kazanina, Lau, Lieberman, Phillips, & Yoshida, 2004)

Immediate Constraint Application

While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills.While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills.

She was taking classes full-time while Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills.She was taking classes full-time while Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills.

While she …

She …

Jessica …

Russell …

while Jessica …

while Russell …

Self-Paced Reading, Gender Mismatch Paradigm

(Kazanina, Lau, Lieberman, Phillips, & Yoshida, 2004)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

because lastsemester

while-cd SHE wastaking

classes while-ab NAME wasworking

full-time to…

Residual Reading Times

nonPrC GM

nonPrc GMM

PrC GM

PrC GMM

Results

GME at the 2nd NP in non-PrC pair

while while Jessica

Russell

(Kazanina et al., 2004)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

because lastsemester

while-cd SHE wastaking

classes while-ab NAME wasworking

full-time to…

Residual Reading Times

nonPrC GM

nonPrc GMM

PrC GM

PrC GMM

Results

GME at the 2nd NP in non-PrC pair

NO GME at the 2nd NP in PrC pairCondition C – immediate

while while Jessica

Russell

(Kazanina et al., 2004)

Experiment 2 (check back soon!)

• It seemed to him that John …

• It seemed to him that Mary …

• It seemed to his mother that John …

• It seemed to his mother that Mary …

Condition B & Active Search

• Hajime– Mary made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Bob was having an

intimate conversation with the host.]

– Sam made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Bob was having an intimate conversation with the host.]

– Mary made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Sue was having an intimate conversation with the host.]

– Sam made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Sue was having an intimate conversation with the host.]

– Rationale: if binding relation is not completed at pronoun, due to Condition B, search for antecedent will continue

Condition B & Active Search

• Takuya– Although John claimed that Mary insulted him, Bill didn’t tell that to Ken.

– Although John claimed that Mary insulted him, Sue didn’t tell that to Ken.

– Although Mary claimed that John insulted him, Bill didn’t tell that to Ken.

– Although Mary claimed that John insulted him, Sue didn’t tell that to Ken.

– Rationale: if binding relation is not completed at pronoun, due to Condition B, search for antecedent will continue

Time-Course Information

• Backwards anaphora studies: critical region is potential antecedent position, directly regulated by binding constraint

• Condition B studies: – Critical region provides information about what happened previously

– Critical region is not directly regulated by binding constraint

– Presumes active search for binder

Where to look for antecedents

a. Structurally

b. Representation-type

What do Pronouns Reactivate?

• Love & Swinney (1995)

– Jeff had read about problems with savings and loan institutions, so he went to the bank to ask about the safety that it provided with respect to CD investments.

Sturt 2003Experiment 2

Accessible-mismatch/Inaccessible-match

Jonathan was pretty worried at the City Hospital.

The surgeon [RC who treated Jonathan] had pricked herself with a used syringe needle. There should be an investigation soon.

Accessible-mismatch/Inaccessible-mismatch

Jennifer was pretty worried at the City Hospital.

The surgeon [RC who treated Jennifer] had pricked herself with a used syringe needle. There should be an investigation soon.

Discourse Interference?

• Lisa– {Sue, Joe} is a very enthusiastic fan of football. {She, he} likes to add

{her,his} own acrobatics to those already being performed. Last game, however, this led to a rather embarrassing result…

– Sue was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Sue kicked her during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-match, inacc-match]

– Joe was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Joe kicked her during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-match, inacc-mismatch]

– Joe was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Joe kicked him during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-mismatch, inacc-match]

– Sue was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Sue kicked him during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-mismatch, inacc-mismatch]

Discourse Interference?

• Clare– When their small business had financial troubles and there wasn’t enough

money for both their salaries

– Jane was generous and told Bob to pay him first.

– Jane was generous and told Bob to pay her first.

– Jane was generous and told Mary to pay her first.

– Jane was generous and told Mary to pay him first.

– Rationale: biases in favor of inaccessible antecedent, (a) distance, (b) potentially reflexive predicate, (c) plausibility

Antecedent Type Effects

• Fiorentino/Minai conjecture…

– On Principle B studies, “we observed the following. The results from the experiments using proper names showed effects of binding-theory incompatible antecedents (Badecker & Straub, 2002; Kennison, 2003). However, with full NPs (Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Clifton et al., 1997) and when the accessible proper name is introduced in a lead-in context sentence (Kennison, 2003; Runner, 2003) the apparent violations of Principle B were not evident.”

– “If we assume that the early filter works on discourse representations, then it might be possible to propose a split among full NPs and proper names in terms of the richness of their discourse representation.”

Principle B-as-initial-filter

• Nicol (1988), Nicol & Swinney (1989): cross-modal priming study in which subjects had to make a lexical decision to a visually presented word while listening to sentences

– The boxer told the skier that the doctor for the team would blame him for the recent injury.

punch – facilitationslope – facilitationnurse - no effect

Principle B-as-initial-filter

• Clifton, Kennison & Albrecht (1997): self-paced reading task. The supervisor(s) is a binding-accessible antecedent for his in (c-d) (but there is a number-match only in (d)), but not for him in (a-b).

a) The supervisors paid him yesterday to finish typing the manuscript.b) The supervisor paid him yesterday to finish typing the manuscript.

c) The supervisors paid his assistant yesterday to finish typing the manuscript.d) The supervisor paid his assistant yesterday to finish typing the manuscript.

• A number mismatch/match effect found in (c) vs. (d), but not in (a) vs. (b) => support for PrB as initial filter hypothesis

fast

slow

Principle B-as-a-late-filter

• Badecker & Straub (2002)

a) John thought that Bill owed him another opportunity to solve the problem.

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

• The two conditions are different only in the gender of the inaccessible antecedent of him; yet reading times at the two words following him were faster in (a) than in (b) => binding constraints did not immediately rule out binding-inaccessible positions from the consideration.

How to Restrict Antecedents


• If the early filter works off discourse representations (see F/M conjecture), then how is a constraint like Principle B implemented?


• [± reflexive] marking on predicate?

– Self-anaphor marks predicate as reflexive, excludes all else

– Pronoun marks predicate as non-reflexive, excludes co-arguments


• Matt– I convinced the author to praise him because of the work’s merits.

– I convinced the authors to praise him because of the work’s merits.

– I convinced the author to praise his manuscript because of the work’s merits.

– I convinced the authors to praise his manuscript because of the work’s merits.

– Rationale: “the pronominal expression may not corefer with the matrix antecedent, even though it is within a separate clause […] We are thus increasing the level of resolution the parser must have to implement Principle B as an initial filter - it can’t rely on a simpler strategy like ‘clausemates’.


• Ivan– Pedro no quiere que el venga.

P not want that he come-subj.

– Pedro no cree que el venga.P not believe that he come-subj.

– Pedro no quiere que ella venga.P not want that she come-subj.

– Pedro no cree que ella venga.P not believe that she come-subj.

Incrementality in Comprehension

• Overall picture…?

Incrementality in Production

Incrementality in Production

• Different domains

– Speech errors

– Flexibility and incrementality

– Look-ahead in planning

V. Ferreira 1996

• Incremental models predict easier production with syntactic flexibility for two reasons– All structures are freely available to be filled

– Strict incremental construction permits the most active lexical representation (rather than syntactic competition) to determine structural decisions.

+

I gave

toyschildren

to

250ms

500ms

1500ms

250ms

Until button press

I gave toys to the children.I gave the children toys.I donated toys to the children.*I donated the children toys.

She gave it to the child.*She gave the child it.She gave the box to him.She gave him the box.

confused

himstory

250ms

1500ms

1000ms

Until button press

The story confused John.John was confused by the story.The story confused him.*Him was confused by the story.

confused

rejected

More Incrementality I.Pronoun Reference II.Language Production.

Documents

Transcript of More Incrementality I.Pronoun Reference II.Language Production.