AnnouncementsAnnouncements
Sample exam questionsSample exam questions
–This week (Thursday): You will submityour Qs into dropbox–This week (Thursday): You will submityour Qs into dropbox
Bring Completed HomeworkBring Completed Homework
–For next class: sentence completionsurvey given to friends.–For next class: sentence completionsurvey given to friends.
Psy1302Psychology of LanguagePsy1302Psychology of Language
Lecture 11 & 12Sentence Comprehension IILecture 11 & 12Sentence Comprehension II
Models of SentenceProcessingModels of SentenceProcessing
Garden-Path ModelGarden-Path Model
–Autonomous–Autonomous
Late closureLate closure
Minimal attachmentMinimal attachment
Constraint-Based ModelConstraint-Based Model
–Interactive–Interactive
Lexical BiasesLexical Biases
Referential ContextsReferential Contexts
Structural BiasesStructural Biases
}
Cues frommultiple sources
constraininterpretation
Traditional Views(contrasting lexical and syntactic ambiguity)Traditional Views(contrasting lexical and syntactic ambiguity)
Table from MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg Paper
Constraint-SatisfactionModel SAYS it’s not the rightcharacterization!
Experiment to test the 2 models(Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, &Sedivy, 1995)Experiment to test the 2 models(Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, &Sedivy, 1995)
Method: Eye-Tracking During Listening
Group 1Group 1
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
Setting-Up the Experiment: RC
Group 2Group 2
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
that
is
Setting-Up the Experiment: RC
Which group was garden-pathed?Which group was garden-pathed?
Group 1:Group 1:
Put the frog on the napkin in the box.Put the frog on the napkin in the box.
Group 2:Group 2:
Put the frog that is on the napkin in thebox.Put the frog that is on the napkin in thebox.
Setting-Up the Experiment: RC
What is a Relative Clause?What is a Relative Clause?
Relative Clause: a subordinate clause thatmodifies the nounRelative Clause: a subordinate clause thatmodifies the noun
Group 1:Group 1:
Put the frog on the napkin in the box.Put the frog on the napkin in the box.
Group 2:Group 2:
Put the frog that is on the napkin in the box.Put the frog that is on the napkin in the box.
REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE, AMBIGUOUS AT “ON”
NON-REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE, UNAMBIGUOUS AT “ON”
Setting-Up the Experiment: RC
Garden-Path ModelGarden-Path Model
How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:
Put the frog on the napkin in the box.Put the frog on the napkin in the box.
The sentence processed using these 2 simple rules:The sentence processed using these 2 simple rules:
–Late Closure & Minimal Attachment–Late Closure & Minimal Attachment
Sometimes these simple rules lead leads one down theincorrect path, and a reanalysis is necessary.Sometimes these simple rules lead leads one down theincorrect path, and a reanalysis is necessary.
Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path
frog
VP
NP
V
put
the
Det
N
PP
on
P
Where to attach?Where to attach?
Late ClosureLate Closure
–When possible, attach incoming lexical items into the clause or phrase currentlybeing processed (i.e., the lowest possible nonterminal node dominating the last itemanalyzed).–When possible, attach incoming lexical items into the clause or phrase currentlybeing processed (i.e., the lowest possible nonterminal node dominating the last itemanalyzed).
Minimal AttachmentMinimal Attachment
–Attach incoming lexical items into the phrase-marker being constructed with thefewest nodes consistent with well-formedness rules of language.–Attach incoming lexical items into the phrase-marker being constructed with thefewest nodes consistent with well-formedness rules of language.
Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path
VP or NP?
put the frog on…
VP-attachment
NP-attachment
2 Attachments & 2 Meanings2 Attachments & 2 Meanings
VP attachmentVP attachment
NP attachmentNP attachment
VP
NP
PP
V
put
the
frog
on
NP
Det
N
P
the
napkin
Det
N
VP
NP
PP
V
put
the
frog
on
NP
Det
N
P
the
napkin
Det
N
NP
…
the frog (that is) on the napkin…
PP phrase as modifier of “frog”
Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path
PP phrase as destination of “put”
the frog
on(to) the napkin
put
frog
VP
NP
V
put
the
Det
N
PP
on
P
Where to attach?Where to attach?
Late ClosureLate Closure
–When possible, attach incoming lexical items into the clause or phrase currentlybeing processed (i.e., the lowest possible nonterminal node dominating the last itemanalyzed).
Minimal AttachmentMinimal Attachment
–Attach incoming lexical items into the phrase-marker being constructed with thefewest nodes consistent with well-formedness rules of language.
1. CANNOT attach directly to NP:
NP Det N PP
IF attach to NP:
NP NP PP
Violates Minimal Attachment!
2. Attach to VP:
VP V NP PP
Does NOT violate either rules!
Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path
VP-attachment
NP-attachment
VP or NP?
Garden-Path ModelGarden-Path Model
How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:
Put the frog on the napkin in the box.Put the frog on the napkin in the box.
Answer:Answer:
Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path
put the frog on the napkin in…
2. When encountering the 2nd prep “in” of “in the box”,parser does not know how to incorporate the word.2. When encountering the 2nd prep “in” of “in the box”,parser does not know how to incorporate the word.
put the frog on…
1. Syntactic processor first VP-attaches for “on” 1. Syntactic processor first VP-attaches for “on”
3. Reanalysis is needed due to incorrect first parse longerprocessing time.3. Reanalysis is needed due to incorrect first parse longerprocessing time.
Constraint-Satisfaction ModelConstraint-Satisfaction Model
How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:
Put the frog on the napkin in the box.Put the frog on the napkin in the box.
Constraint-Satisfaction Model uses information frommultiple sources to constrain interpretationConstraint-Satisfaction Model uses information frommultiple sources to constrain interpretation
–In this case the lexical and contextual informationlikely does not support the interpretation or favorsanother one.–In this case the lexical and contextual informationlikely does not support the interpretation or favorsanother one.
Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path
Constraint-Satisfaction ModelConstraint-Satisfaction Model
How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:
Put the frog on the napkin in the box.Put the frog on the napkin in the box.
BIG Q: What kinds of information can be used toconstrain interpretation?BIG Q: What kinds of information can be used toconstrain interpretation?
Examples:Examples:
–Lexical Biases–Lexical Biases
–Referential Context–Referential Context
Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model
Constraint-Satisfaction ModelConstraint-Satisfaction Model
Lexical BiasesLexical Biases
Type of syntactic/semanticenvironments in which a word appearsType of syntactic/semanticenvironments in which a word appears
Example:Example:
–“Put” almost always appears with a VPattached PP (destination)–“Put” almost always appears with a VPattached PP (destination)
“Put the car in the garage”“Put the car in the garage”
–“Choose” rarely does so–“Choose” rarely does so
“Choose the car in the garage”“Choose the car in the garage”
Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model
Constraint-Satisfaction ModelConstraint-Satisfaction Model
How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:
Put the frog on the napkin in the box.Put the frog on the napkin in the box.
Lexical Biases Support VP-attachmentLexical Biases Support VP-attachment
–“Put” almost always appears with a VP attached PP(destination)–“Put” almost always appears with a VP attached PP(destination)
–“on” is a locative preposition–“on” is a locative preposition
“on the napkin” is a location“on the napkin” is a location
i.e., compatible with possibility of a destinationrequired by “put”i.e., compatible with possibility of a destinationrequired by “put”
Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model
Constraint-Satisfaction ModelConstraint-Satisfaction Model
Referential ContextReferential Context
–Pick a frog.–Pick a frog.
–Which frog did you pick?–Which frog did you pick?
–Modifiers pick out a member of a set–Modifiers pick out a member of a set
When 2+ referents, modifiers help differentiate the referentin questionWhen 2+ referents, modifiers help differentiate the referentin question
![j0232238[1]](data/images/img19.png)
Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model
Experiment to test the 2 models(Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, &Sedivy, 1995)Experiment to test the 2 models(Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, &Sedivy, 1995)
FINALLY, the experiment!!!FINALLY, the experiment!!!
Do we consider the referential context inparsing?Do we consider the referential context inparsing?
More specifically, WHEN do we considerreferential parsing?More specifically, WHEN do we considerreferential parsing?
Do we consider the referential context in parsing?Do we consider the referential context in parsing?
More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?
1-Referent: 1 frog1-Referent: 1 frog
2-Referents: 2 frogs2-Referents: 2 frogs
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
OR
![j0403997[1]](data/images/img22.png)
Do we consider the referential context in parsing?Do we consider the referential context in parsing?
More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?
1-Referent: 1 frog1-Referent: 1 frog
2-Referents: 2 frogs2-Referents: 2 frogs
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
OR
NAPKIN is a potential destination.
Do we consider the referential context in parsing?Do we consider the referential context in parsing?
More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?
1-Referent: 1 frog1-Referent: 1 frog
2-Referents: 2 frogs2-Referents: 2 frogs
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
OR
BY GARDEN-PATH MODEL:
Regardless of 1 or 2 referent, during the first pass, NAPKIN is consideredas a destination.
Do we consider the referential context in parsing?Do we consider the referential context in parsing?
More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?
1-Referent: 1 frog1-Referent: 1 frog
2-Referents: 2 frogs2-Referents: 2 frogs
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
OR
BY CONSTRAINT-SATISFACTION MODEL
(which takes into consideration of referential context early):
For 1 referent, NAPKIN is considered as a destination
For 2 referent, NAPKIN could potentially be a modifier of FROG, andNOT a destination
Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, & Sedivy (1995)Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, & Sedivy (1995)
Method: Eye-Tracking During Listening
Put the frog on the napkin… into the box.
(1-Referent)
(2-Referents)
Put the frog that is on the napkin… into the
box.
(1-Referent)
(2-Referents)
AMBIGUOUS SENTENCE HEARD:
UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCE HEARD:
CORRECTDESTINATION
INCORRECTDESTINATION
PUT THE FROG ON THE NAPKIN IN THE BOX.
- Unreduced Relative “that is”
- Reduced Relative
2
3
1
4
1-Referent: 1 frog1-Referent: 1 frog
2-Referents: 2 frogs2-Referents: 2 frogs
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
1
2
3
4
Typical Eye-movement for theAmbiguous SentencesTypical Eye-movement for theAmbiguous Sentences
1
2
3
4
A
B
1-Referent: 1 frog1-Referent: 1 frog
2-Referents: 2 frogs2-Referents: 2 frogs
Put
the
frog
on
the
napkin
in
the
box.
1
2
3
4
Typical Eye-movement for theAmbiguous SentencesTypical Eye-movement for theAmbiguous Sentences
A
B
Typical Eye-movementsFigures from Tanenhaus et al. (1995)Typical Eye-movementsFigures from Tanenhaus et al. (1995)
Constraint-Satisfaction ModelConstraint-Satisfaction Model
Highly InteractiveHighly Interactive
Limited Parallel ProcessingLimited Parallel Processing
–If all information converge on a singleanalysis, then serial–If all information converge on a singleanalysis, then serial
–If they do not, then several may bemaintained–If they do not, then several may bemaintained
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
Verb Argument Structure
(prob. of PP)
e.g., put, choose
Preposition
prob. of NP vs. VP
e.g., of, on
Noun Arg Structure
(prob. of PP)
e.g., frog
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
or
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
Selection of VP- vs. NP-attachmentSelection of VP- vs. NP-attachment
–Put the frog on…–Put the frog on…
When with:When with:
–1 referent–1 referent
–2 referent–2 referent
Verb ArgumentStructure
(prob. of PP)
e.g., put, choose
Preposition
prob. of NP vs.VP
e.g., of, on
Noun Arg Structure
(prob. of PP)
e.g., frog
Referential Context
or
NP-Attachment
VP-Attachment
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
Preposition
prob. of NP vs. VP
e.g., of, on
Noun Arg Structure
(prob. of PP)
e.g., frog
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
or
PUT (V): NP, PP
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
Preposition
prob. of NP vs. VP
e.g., of, on
Noun Arg Structure
(prob. of PP)
e.g., frog
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
or
PUT (V): NP, PP
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
Preposition
prob. of NP vs. VP
e.g., of, on
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
or
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
or
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
ON (P):
95% NP-Attach
5% VP-Attach.
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
or
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
ON (P):
95% NP-Attach
5% VP-Attach.
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
or
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
ON (P):
95% NP-Attach
5% VP-Attach.
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
ON (P):
95% NP-Attach
5% VP-Attach.
1-referent
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
ON (P):
95% NP-Attach
5% VP-Attach.
1-referent
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
ON (P):
95% NP-Attach
5% VP-Attach.
2-referents
How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)
PP
VP-Attached
PP
NP-Attached
Referential Context
PUT (V): NP, PP
FROG (N): No bias
ON (P):
95% NP-Attach
5% VP-Attach.
2-referents
Break!Break!
Moving onto Assigned ReadingsMoving onto Assigned Readings
Garden Path Model vs. ConstraintSatisfaction ModelGarden Path Model vs. ConstraintSatisfaction Model
–Ferreira & Clifton (1986)–Ferreira & Clifton (1986)
–Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)–Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)
![MCj01208290000[1]](data/images/img44.png)
![MCED00219_0000[1]](data/images/img45.png)
SubtextSubtext
These experiments test hypothesesThese experiments test hypotheses
–What was being tested?–What was being tested?
–What was found?–What was found?
Multiple experimentsMultiple experiments
–How did each experiment replicate orextend previous findings?–How did each experiment replicate orextend previous findings?
–How did each experiment support or refuteprevious findings?–How did each experiment support or refuteprevious findings?
![MCj01861560000[1]](data/images/img46.png)
OutlineOutline
Stats Terms SimplifiedStats Terms Simplified
–t-tests–t-tests
–ANOVAs, Main effects and Interactions–ANOVAs, Main effects and Interactions
–Regressions, Correlations–Regressions, Correlations
Assigned PapersAssigned Papers
T-tests and ANOVAsT-tests and ANOVAs
T-tests: Compare 2 means.T-tests: Compare 2 means.
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance):Compare multiple meansANOVA (Analysis of Variance):Compare multiple means
–Yields significance of main or interactioneffects–Yields significance of main or interactioneffects
Hypothetical Experiment(Example of Main & Interactions Effects)Hypothetical Experiment(Example of Main & Interactions Effects)
Dependent Measure: Number of GirlfriendsDependent Measure: Number of Girlfriends
Independent Measure:Independent Measure:
–Wealth of bachelors according to Income–Wealth of bachelors according to Income
(Rich, Poor)(Rich, Poor)
–Looks of same bachelors according to Oprah–Looks of same bachelors according to Oprah
(Handsome, Ugly)(Handsome, Ugly)
Design 2 x 2Design 2 x 2
RichRich
PoorPoor
Hand-someHand-some
UglyUgly
# of GF
# of GF
# of GF
# of GF
RichRich
PoorPoor
Hand-someHand-some
UglyUgly
RichRich
PoorPoor
Hand-someHand-some
UglyUgly
Few
Few
Many
Many
Few
Few
Many
Few
RichRich
PoorPoor
Hand-someHand-some
UglyUgly
RichRich
PoorPoor
Hand-someHand-some
UglyUgly
Many
Least
Most
Many
Many
Few
Few
Many
Rich
Poor
#GFs
handsome
ugly
Rich
Poor
#GFs
ugly
handsome
Rich
Poor
#GFs
handsome
ugly
Rich
Poor
#GFs
ugly
handsome
Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)
Is a female model more attractive inshort or long skirt?Is a female model more attractive inshort or long skirt?
– Model pictured in 10 different short skirtsand 10 different long skirts– Model pictured in 10 different short skirtsand 10 different long skirts
–30 Males rated the model’s attractivenessin each skirt (1 = not attractive to 7 =extremely attractive)–30 Males rated the model’s attractivenessin each skirt (1 = not attractive to 7 =extremely attractive)
Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)
F1: Subject AnalysisF1: Subject Analysis
–Comparing subjects–Comparing subjects
–Averaging across items for each subject–Averaging across items for each subject
F2: Items AnalysisF2: Items Analysis
–Comparing items–Comparing items
–Averaging across subjects for each item–Averaging across subjects for each item
Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)
F1: Subject AnalysisF1: Subject Analysis
F2: Items AnalysisF2: Items Analysis
ShortLong
Frederick H.5.23.1
Hef7.07.0
Rudy G.5.24.9
Bill C.6.91.3
Rating
Short Skirt 14.5
Short Skirt 25.3
…
Long Skirt 16.7
Long Skirt 23.5
…
CorrelationsCorrelations
RegressionRegression
Correlation:Correlation:
–degree of association between two random variables.–degree of association between two random variables.
Partial correlation:Partial correlation:
–degree of association between two random variables, withthe effect of a set of controlling random variablesremoved.–degree of association between two random variables, withthe effect of a set of controlling random variablesremoved.
-1 ≤ R ≤ 1-1 ≤ R ≤ 1
–Positive correlation–Positive correlation
–Negative correlation–Negative correlation
–No correlation–No correlation
Ferreira & Clifton (1986)Ferreira & Clifton (1986)
Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:
1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)
2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)
A: No, according to Garden-Path Model.A: No, according to Garden-Path Model.
Autonomous/modular parser.Autonomous/modular parser.
Context information is used only after initial parse.Context information is used only after initial parse.
Goal of Experiments:Goal of Experiments:
To experimentally test (and provide evidence) for such aposition.To experimentally test (and provide evidence) for such aposition.
Thematic RolesThematic Roles
TerminologiesTerminologies
Thematic Roles and Argument Structure:Thematic Roles and Argument Structure:
Thematic role is the semantic relationship between apredicate (e.g. a verb) and an argument (e.g. the nounphrases) of a sentence.Thematic role is the semantic relationship between apredicate (e.g. a verb) and an argument (e.g. the nounphrases) of a sentence.
Thematic Roles(examples)Thematic Roles(examples)
Courtney hit the ball with the bat to Richard.Courtney hit the ball with the bat to Richard.
Verb: HitVerb: Hit
![MCj01494670000[1]](data/images/img53.png)
Instrument
Patient
Goal
Agent
Thematic Roles(more examples)Thematic Roles(more examples)
Agent: deliberately performs the action (e.g. Bill ate his soup quietly)Agent: deliberately performs the action (e.g. Bill ate his soup quietly)
Experiencer: receives sensory or emotional input (e.g. Bill slept).Experiencer: receives sensory or emotional input (e.g. Bill slept).
Theme/Patient: undergoes the action (e.g. The rocks crushed thecar).Theme/Patient: undergoes the action (e.g. The rocks crushed thecar).
Instrument: used to carry out the action (e.g. He hit her with astick).Instrument: used to carry out the action (e.g. He hit her with astick).
Cause: mindlessly performs the action (e.g. An avalanchedestroyed the ancient temple).Cause: mindlessly performs the action (e.g. An avalanchedestroyed the ancient temple).
Location: where the action occurs (e.g. I put the car in thegarage).Location: where the action occurs (e.g. I put the car in thegarage).
Goal: what the action is directed towards (e.g. I moved to Boston).Goal: what the action is directed towards (e.g. I moved to Boston).
Source: where the action originated (e.g. I came from HarvardSquare).Source: where the action originated (e.g. I came from HarvardSquare).
From WIKIPEDIA
AnimacyAnimacy
Animacy pertains to likelihood the noun refers to ananimate being, and thus is likely to be an agent (i.e.,performer of an action).Animacy pertains to likelihood the noun refers to ananimate being, and thus is likely to be an agent (i.e.,performer of an action).
Animate vs. Inanimate.Animate vs. Inanimate.
Inanimate
Animate
Animate: defendantAnimate: defendant
–Defendant = a good agent–Defendant = a good agent
The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to beunreliable.The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to beunreliable.
Inanimate: evidenceInanimate: evidence
–Evidence = not a good agent (but possibly goodtheme/patient)–Evidence = not a good agent (but possibly goodtheme/patient)
The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to beunreliable.The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to beunreliable.
AnimacyAnimacy
Relative Clause:Reduced vs. UnreducedRelative Clause:Reduced vs. Unreduced
Reduced Relative ClauseReduced Relative Clause
The defendant examined (by the lawyer) turned out tobe unreliable.The defendant examined (by the lawyer) turned out tobe unreliable.
Unreduced Relative ClauseUnreduced Relative Clause
The defendant who was examined (by the lawyer)turned out to be unreliable.The defendant who was examined (by the lawyer)turned out to be unreliable.
Ambiguous at “examined”
Unambiguous at “examined”
Main Clause vs. ReducedRelative ClauseMain Clause vs. ReducedRelative Clause
“The defendant examined…” is ambiguous at“examined” because the sentence has 2 possiblecontinuations:“The defendant examined…” is ambiguous at“examined” because the sentence has 2 possiblecontinuations:
Possibility 1: Main Clause ReadingPossibility 1: Main Clause Reading
“examined” is the verb of the MAIN sentence.“examined” is the verb of the MAIN sentence.
e.g. The defendant examined the lawyer.e.g. The defendant examined the lawyer.
Possibility 2: Reduced Relative Clause ReadingPossibility 2: Reduced Relative Clause Reading
“examined” is the verb of the RELATIVE clause.“examined” is the verb of the RELATIVE clause.
e.g. The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out tobe unreliable.e.g. The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out tobe unreliable.
Main Clause vs. ReducedRelative ClauseMain Clause vs. ReducedRelative Clause
Possibility 1: Main Clause ReadingPossibility 1: Main Clause Reading
“defendant” is the agent examining something“defendant” is the agent examining something
[S[NP The defendant [VP examined…[S[NP The defendant [VP examined…
Possibility 2: Reduced Relative Clause ReadingPossibility 2: Reduced Relative Clause Reading
“defendant” is the patient being examined“defendant” is the patient being examined
[S[NP[NP The defendant [RC examined…[S[NP[NP The defendant [RC examined…
Easier by Garden-Path Model
“The defendant examined…”“The defendant examined…”
Design(Is there early thematic/semantic influence?)Design(Is there early thematic/semantic influence?)
4 Sentence Types:4 Sentence Types:
Reduced, AnimateReduced, Animate
The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
Reduced, InanimateReduced, Inanimate
The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
Unreduced, AnimateUnreduced, Animate
The defendant that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The defendant that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
Unreduced, InanimateUnreduced, Inanimate
The evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
DISAMBIGUATING REGION
F&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic informationF&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic information
ANIMATEANIMATE
(A)(A)
INANIMATEINANIMATE
(I)(I)
Reduced Relative(RR)Reduced Relative(RR)
RR-ARR-A
RR-IRR-I
UnreducedRelative(UR)UnreducedRelative(UR)
UR-AUR-A
UR-IUR-I
ANIMACY
SENTENCE TYPE
The Measurement andScoring RegionsThe Measurement andScoring Regions
Measures fixation time in regionsMeasures fixation time in regions
–First pass: first left to right fixation on theregion & right-to-left movement withinthe region–First pass: first left to right fixation on theregion & right-to-left movement withinthe region
–Second pass: regressions and rereadingof the sentences after leaving region–Second pass: regressions and rereadingof the sentences after leaving region
F&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic informationF&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic information
ReducedReduced
The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable. The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
UnreducedUnreduced
The evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
(C = Critical Region that disambiguates local ambiguity)
C
C
C-1
C-1
C-2
C-2
C+1
C+2
C+1
C+2
F&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic informationF&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic information
The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
AnimAnim
InanimInanim
RRRR
URUR
PREDICTIONS CONCERNING C & C+1
C
C-1
C-2
C+1
C+2
AnimAnim
InanimInanim
RRRR
URUR
MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)
INTERACTIVE
FAST
FAST
SLOW
SLOW
FAST
FAST
SLOW
FAST
FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS
The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
AnimAnim
InanimInanim
RRRR
URUR
PREDICTIONS CONCERNING C & C+1
C
C-1
C-2
C+1
C+2
AnimAnim
InanimInanim
RRRR
URUR
MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)
INTERACTIVE
FAST
FAST
SLOW
SLOW
FAST
FAST
SLOW
FAST
FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS
Main Effect of Reduction
Main Effect of Reduction (maybe)
Main Effect of Animacy
Interaction Effect of Animacy x Reduction
NO Main Effect of Animacy
The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
AnimAnim
InanimInanim
RRRR
URUR
PREDICTIONS CONCERNING C & C+1
C
C-1
C-2
C+1
C+2
AnimAnim
InanimInanim
RRRR
URUR
MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)
INTERACTIVE
FAST
FAST
SLOW
SLOW
FAST
FAST
SLOW
FAST
FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS
Animate Reduced
Animate Unreduced
Inanimate Reduced
Inanimate Unreduced
SLOW
FAST
SLOW
FAST
SLOW
FAST
FAST
FAST
MODULAR
INTERACTIVE
The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
C
C-1
C-2
C+1
C+2
Animate Reduced
Animate Unreduced
Inanimate Reduced
Inanimate Unreduced
SLOW
FAST
SLOW
FAST
SLOW
FAST
FAST
FAST
MODULAR
INTERACTIVE
FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS
ACTUAL RESULTS
Ferreira & Clifton (1986)Ferreira & Clifton (1986)
Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:
1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)
2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)
A: No, according to Garden-Path Model.A: No, according to Garden-Path Model.
Autonomous/modular parser.Autonomous/modular parser.
Context information is used only after initial parse.Context information is used only after initial parse.
Goal of Experiments:Goal of Experiments:
To experimentally test (and provide evidence) for such aposition.To experimentally test (and provide evidence) for such aposition.
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
MinimalMinimal
(MA)(MA)
Non-minimalNon-minimal
(NMA)(NMA)
SupportiveSupportive
MA-MAMA-MA
NMA-NMANMA-NMA
NeutralNeutral
(N)(N)
N-MAN-MA
N-NMAN-NMA
ATTACHMENT
CONTEXT
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
What types of sentences were tested?What types of sentences were tested?
–VP-Attached vs. NP-Attached–VP-Attached vs. NP-Attached
–Main Clause vs. Reduced Relative Clause–Main Clause vs. Reduced Relative Clause
VP- vs. NP-attachmentVP- vs. NP-attachment
Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / beforehis coffee break.Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / beforehis coffee break.
Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / onto thevan.Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / onto thevan.
![MCj02372440000[1]](data/images/img61.png)
VP-attached:
NP-attached
(VP-attachment: Minimal Attachment)
(NP-attachment: Non-minimal Attachment)
VP- vs. NP-attachmentVP- vs. NP-attachment
Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / before lunch.(VP-attachment: Minimal Attachment)Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / before lunch.(VP-attachment: Minimal Attachment)
Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / onto the van(NP-attachment: Non-minimal Attachment)Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / onto the van(NP-attachment: Non-minimal Attachment)
VP-attached: Minimal
NP-attached: Non-Minimal
NP
S
VP
NP
V
Sam
the boxes
PP
loaded
on the cart
S
VP
NP
V
NP
NP
PP
Sam
the boxes
loaded
on the cart
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
Support + NMA
Support + MA
No Support + MA
No Support + NMA
Main vs. Reduced RelativeMain vs. Reduced Relative
The man played the tape / and liked it.The man played the tape / and liked it.
The man played the tape / liked it.The man played the tape / liked it.
MAIN CLAUSE
REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE
(MAIN CLAUSE: Minimal Attachment)
(REDUCED RELATIVE: Non-minimal Attachment)
Main vs. Reduced RelativeMain vs. Reduced Relative
The man played the tape / and liked it. (MAINCLAUSE: Minimal Attachment)The man played the tape / and liked it. (MAINCLAUSE: Minimal Attachment)
The man played the tape / liked it. (REDUCEDRELATIVE: Nonminimal Attachment)The man played the tape / liked it. (REDUCEDRELATIVE: Nonminimal Attachment)
NP
VP
S
NP
V
The man
played
the tape
MAIN CLAUSE: Minimal
REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE: Non-Min.
NP
VP
S
NP
NP
V
VP
V
The man
played
the tape
liked
NP
t
S
and
CONJ
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
Support + NMA
Support + MA
No Support + MA
No Support + NMA
MinMin
Non-minNon-min
SupportSupport
NeutralNeutral
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
MinMin
Non-minNon-min
SupportSupport
NeutralNeutral
Fast/Slow PREDICTIONS FOR CRITICAL REGION C
MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)
INTERACTIVE
FAST
SLOW
FAST
SLOW
SLOW
SLOW
FAST
FAST
est
Effect of Attachment
Effect of Attachment (maybe)
Effect of Context
Effect of Attachment x Context (maybe)
NO Effect of Context
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
1st Pass
2nd Pass
Reading Time
Reading Time
C-1
C
Sam loaded
the box on the cart
C-1
C
Sam loaded
the box on the cart
Results for VP-attached vs. NP-attached.Results for VP-attached vs. NP-attached.
NO Main Effect of Attachment
Main Effect of Region
Interaction Effect of Attachment x Region
NO Main Effect of Context
Main Effect of Attachment
Main Effect of Region
Interaction Effect of Attachm. x Region
NO Main Effect of Context
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
Reading Time
Reading Time
C-1
C
C+1
The editor
played the tape
(and)
agreed
the story
was big
C-1
C
C+1
The editor
played the tape
(and)
agreed
the story
was big
1st Pass
2nd Pass
Results for Main vs. ReducedResults for Main vs. Reduced
Main Effect of Attachment
Main Effect of Region
NO Main Effect of Context
Main Effect of Attachment
Main Effect of Region
Interaction Effect of Attachm. x Region
NO Main Effect of Context
F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context InformationF&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information
Main Effect of Attachment
NO Main Effect of Context
EASIEST
HARDEST
E.g. Did Sam play the tape?
Eye-movement Back to PreviousRegion & Percentage Correct onProbe QsEye-movement Back to PreviousRegion & Percentage Correct onProbe Qs
Eye movements back
F&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 withanother methodF&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 withanother method
Self Paced Reading TimeSelf Paced Reading Time
–Dashed lines as place holders for letters–Dashed lines as place holders for letters
–Button press to see regions–Button press to see regions
Replacing dashed linesReplacing dashed lines
F&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 with anothermethodF&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 with anothermethod
F&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 with anothermethodF&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 with anothermethod
Main Effect of Attachment
Main Effect of Region
Interaction Effect of Attachment x Region
Interaction Effect of Context x Attachment!
(Context supporting minimal attachment reduced reading time.
Context supporting non-minimal attachment increased reading time)
Ferreira & Clifton (1986)Ferreira & Clifton (1986)
General ConclusionsGeneral Conclusions
–Support Modular View–Support Modular View
Initial parse disregardInitial parse disregard
–Thematic information–Thematic information
–Referential context–Referential context
Support for Minimal AttachmentSupport for Minimal Attachment
ANY CRITIQUES?ANY CRITIQUES?