Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions; Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is concerned with two related issues in sentence processing-one methodological and one theoretical. Methodologically, it provides an unconfounded test of the ability of the cross-modal lexical priming task, when used appropriately, to provide detailed evidence about the time-course of antecedent reactivation during sentence processing. Theoretically, it provides a study of the nature of the representation that is examined when a reference-seeking element is linked to its antecedent during the processing of object-relative clause constructions. In these studies, subjects heard sentences which contained a lexical ambiguity placed in a strong biasing context. In one study this ambiguous word was the “moved” or “fronted” object of the verb in an object-relative construction. A cross-modal lexical priming (CMLP) naming task was used to determine whether one or more of the meanings of the ambiguity are activated at three temporally distinct points during the sentence: (1) immediately after the lexical ambiguity (Study 1); (2) a later point that was 700 milliseconds before the offset of the main verb (Study 2); (3) immediately after this main verb (at the gap in this filler-gap construction) (Study 2). The probes in the CMLP task were controlled for potential confounds. The results demonstrate the following: At Test Point 1, all meanings of the ambiguity were activated; at Test Point 2, neither meaning of the ambiguity was (still) activated; at Test Point 3, only a single (context-relevant) meaning of the ambiguity was reactivated. It is concluded that an underlying (deep; non-surface-level) memorial representation of the sentence is examined during the process of linking an antecedent to a structural position requiring a referent, and that the CMLP task provides an unbiased measure of this reactivation. Further, it is concluded that this effect cannot be accounted for under a “compound cue” (Ratcliff & McKoon, 1994) explanation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension.Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981).Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1986). The use of syntactic information in filling gaps.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectation in sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 696–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloitre, M., & Bever, T. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation and discourse.Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. T., & Chang, F. R. (1983). Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents.Memory & Cognition, 11, 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In D. R. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.),Natural language processing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations.Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1988). On modularity in syntactic processing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 125–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1993). Empty categories in sentence processing: A question of visibility. In G. T. M. Altmann & R. Shillcock (Eds.),Cognitive models of speech processing: The Sperlonga Meeting II. Hove, England: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1987). Processing syntactic structures: Evidence from Dutch.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., Henstra, J., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1995). Finding candidate antecedents: Phrases or conceptual entities. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts.

  • Gamsey, S., Tanenhaus, M., & Chapman, R. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Sentence Processing [Special issue].Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillund, G. & Shiffrin, R. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.Psychological Review, 91, 1–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora.Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickok, G. (1993). Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden path sentences.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElree, B., & Bever, T. (1989). The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Sentence Processing [Special issue].Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKee, C., Nicol, J., & McDaniel, D. (1993). Children's application of binding during sentence processing.Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 265–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1994). Sentential context and on-line lexical decision tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1239–1243.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R., & Ward, G. (1994). Testing theories of language processing: An empirical investigation of the on-line lexical decision task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1219–1228.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, T. P. (1992). Priming and constraints it places on theories of memory and retrieval.Psychological Review, 99, 650–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, H. N., Shapiro, L. P., & Nawy, R. (1994). Prosody and the processing of fillergap sentences.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 473–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, J. (1988).Coreference processing during sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Nicol, J. (1993). Processing syntactic dependencies: Task specific effects. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, Amherst. MA.

  • Nicol, J., Fodor, J. D., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Using cross modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1229–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure and coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Sentence Processing [Special issue].Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, J. L., & Pickering, M. J. (1993). Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: Evidence for semantic priming.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 207–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias.Memory & Cognition, 9, 225–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterhout, L., & Swinney, D. (1993) On the temporal course of gap-filling during comprehension of verbal passives.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory.Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1994). Retrieving information from memory: Spreading activation theories versus compound cue theories.Psychological Review, 101, 177–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shillcock, R. (1982). The on-line resolution of pronominal anaphora.Language and Speech, 25, 385–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowe, L., Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson (1991). Filling gaps on-line: Use of lexical and semantic information in sentence processing.Language and Speech, 34, 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D., & Osterhout, L. (1990). Inference generation during auditory language comprehension.The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 25, 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D., & Zurif, E. (1995). Syntactic processing in aphasia.Brain and Language, 50, 225–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D., Ford, M., Frauenfelder, U., & Bresnan, J. (1987).The time course of coindexation during sentence comprehension. Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society Meeting, Seattle.

  • Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D. A., Onifer, W., Prather, P., & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences.Memory & Cognition, 7, 159–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts.Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1985). Do listeners compute linguistic representations? In D. R. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.),Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Stowe, L. A., & Carlson, G. (1985).The interaction of lexical expectation and pragmatics in parsing filler-gap constructions. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Cognitive Science Society Meetings, pp. 361–365.

  • Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic Processing,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 683–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurif, E., Swinney, D., Prather, P., & Love, T. (1994). Functional localization in the brain with respect to syntactic processing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23, 487–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurif, E., Swinney, D., Prather, P., Solomon, J., & Bushell, C. (1993). An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia.Brain and Language, 45, 448–464.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, 92093, San Diego, La Jolla, California

    Tracy Love & David Swinney

Authors
  1. Tracy Love
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Swinney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions and changes in this paper, and the support of a fellowship to the first author from grant T32 DC 00041 and NIH grant ROI DC00494 (to the second author) for this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Love, T., Swinney, D. Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions; Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. J Psycholinguist Res 25, 5–24 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708418

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708418

Keywords

Search

Navigation