Advertisement

Delayed Application of Binding Condition C During Cataphoric Pronoun Resolution

  • Clare PattersonEmail author
  • Claudia Felser
Article
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

Previous research has shown that during cataphoric pronoun resolution, the predictive search for an antecedent is restricted by a structure-sensitive constraint known as ‘Condition C’, such that an antecedent is only considered when the constraint does not apply. Evidence has mainly come from self-paced reading (SPR), a method which may not be able to pick up on short-lived effects over the timecourse of processing. This study investigates whether or not the active search mechanism is constrained by Condition C at all points in time during cataphoric processing. We carried out one eye-tracking during reading and a parallel SPR experiment, accompanied by offline coreference judgment tasks. Although offline judgments about coreference were constrained by Condition C, the eye-tracking experiment revealed temporary consideration of antecedents that should be ruled out by Condition C. The SPR experiment using exactly the same materials indicated, conversely, that only structurally appropriate antecedents were considered. Taken together, our results suggest that the application of Condition C may be delayed during naturalistic reading.

Keywords

Sentence processing Cataphora Pronouns Binding German Eye-movement monitoring Self-paced reading 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following people for their help with this project: Daniela Mertzen for help with materials creation; Daniela Mertzen, Janna Drummer, Thea Villinger and Carrie Toptan for experiment preparation and data collection; Janna Drummer for fruitful discussions and useful insights.

Funding

This research was supported by an Alexander-von-Humboldt professorship awarded to Harald Clahsen (Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism) and by the German Science Foundation (DFG) through Grant No. FE 1138/1-1 awarded to Claudia Felser.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.748.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boston, M. F., Hale, J., Kliegl, R., Patil, U., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam sentence corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.2.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Box, G. E., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, (Methodological), 211–252. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984418.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  6. Clackson, K., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Online processing of cataphoric pronouns by children and adults: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. In N. Danis, K. Mesh, & H. Sung (Eds.), Proceedings of BUCLD (Vol. 35, pp. 119–131). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clifton, C. J., & Staub, A. (2011). Syntactic influences on eye movements during reading. In S. Liversedge, I. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cowart, W., & Cairns, H. S. (1987). Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: Some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 318–331.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunnings, I., & Felser, C. (2013). The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 188–219.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.548391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drummer, J.-D., & Felser, C. (2018). Cataphoric pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 97–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drummond, A. (2013). Ibex Farm. http://spellout.net/ibexfarm.
  12. Filik, R., & Sanford, A. J. (2008). When is cataphoric reference recognised? Cognition, 107(3), 1112–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62(3), 325–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00788-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirst, W., & Brill, G. A. (1980). Contextual aspects of pronoun assignment. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(2), 168–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90152-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 384–409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2010). Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(2), 371–400.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902974120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). Package “lmerTest.” R Package Version, 2.Google Scholar
  18. Kwon, N., & Sturt, P. (2013). Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 377–387.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.645314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murray, W. (2000). Sentence processing: Issues and measures. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 649–664). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Osborne, J. W. (2010). Improving your data transformations: Applying the Box-Cox transformation. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(12), 2.Google Scholar
  21. Pablos, L., Doetjes, J., Ruijgrok, B., & Cheng, L. L.-S. (2015). Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1638.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01638.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of “short” relative clause sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 717–737.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713755827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2016). Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 329.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org.
  25. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI21–SI49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  29. Schlenker, P. (2005). Minimize Restrictors! (Notes on Definite Descriptions, Condition C and Epithets). In E. Maier, C. Bary, & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 9, pp. 385–416). Nijmegen: The Nijmegen Centre of Semantics (NCS).Google Scholar
  30. van Gompel, R. P. G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 128–139.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vasishth, S., Bruessow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685–712.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vasishth, S., von der Malsburg, T., & Engelmann, F. (2013). What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(2), 125–134.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(2), 105–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9179-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 761–770.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.788196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Potsdam Research Institute for MultilingualismUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Institut für deutsche Sprache und Literatur IUniversität zu KölnCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations