TOWARDS A MODULAR APPROACH TO ANAPHORIC PROCESSING: semantic operations precede discourse operations Arnout Koornneef

HYPOTHESES Variable binding is cheaper than coreference In ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference

SEMANTICS vs. DISCOURSE previous research Piñango, Burkhardt, Brun and Avrutin (2001) Dual task experiment: participants listened to critical sentences and performed lexical decision task Rationale: tasks tap into same resources SEMANTICS vs. DISCOURSE previous research

STIMULI variable binding Everyone i hopes that the tenants will pay him i the rent before… coreference The landlord i hopes that the tenants will pay him i the rent before… STIMULI

RESULTS No difference in control condition Longer RTs in coreference condition in experimental condition Variable binding is cheaper than coreference RESULTS

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION coreference condition The landlord i hopes that the tenants will pay him i the rent before… the landlord c-command him: Variable binding and coreference are both possible Longer RTs because of interference between two available processes?

EYE-TRACKING EXPERIMENT: semantics vs. discourse EYE-TRACKING EXPERIMENT: semantics vs. discourse

OBJECTIVES Support for hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Additional support for hypothesis 1: variable binding is cheaper than coreference OBJECTIVES

HYPOTHESIS 2 In an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference HYPOTHESIS 2

EXPERIMENTAL ITEMS variable binding context A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men, among them the very old man Paul, could barely cope. Every working man who just like Paul was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. coreference context A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today the very old man Paul could barely cope. Every working man who knew that Paul was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. EXPERIMENTAL ITEMS

PREDICTIONS variable binding context he is bound by every working man context supports dependency no re-analysis coreference context he is bound by every working man context does not support dependency re-analysis he refers to Paul Longer reading times (regression path or second-pass durations) in coreference context PREDICTIONS

EYE-TRACKING MEASURES First-pass duration: time spent in a region before moving on or looking back Regression path duration: time from first entering a region until moving the eyes beyond that region, includes regression time Second-pass duration: duration of re-fixations Total fixation duration: the sum of all fixations in a region EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENT MEASURES The clown thinks that he is… Reading Times for word 3 (thinks) First-pass duration = Regression Path duration = Second-pass duration = 6 Total duration = EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

FIRST-PASS DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… FIRST-PASS DURATION

SECOND-PASS DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

TOTAL FIXATION DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… TOTAL FIXATION DURATION

RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 2 Significant differences in first-pass, second-pass and total fixation duration: longer reading times in coreference context condition RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 2

CONCLUSION Results support hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Consistent with the more general claim: semantics before discourse CONCLUSION

PROBLEMS Are the ambiguous pronouns interpreted as we intended? Is the context before critical pronoun strong enough to bias the interpretation? PROBLEMS

TWO WEB-BASED CONTROL EXPERIMENTS 1)Ask participants how they interpret the pronoun 2)Ask participants to finish the story TWO WEB-BASED CONTROL EXPERIMENTS

CONTROL EXPERIMENT 1 In variable binding context quantified referent is chosen 88.2% of the time In coreference context proper name is chosen 89.5% of the time The pronouns were interpreted as we intended CONTROL EXPERIMENT 1

CONTROL EXPERIMENT 2 Participants finish a story and indicate how the pronoun should be interpreted A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men, among them the very old man Paul, could barely cope. Every working man who just like Paul was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he.. CONTROL EXPERIMENT 2

In variable binding context story continues about quantified referent 89.1% of the time In coreference context story continues about proper name 78.5% of the time Pronoun in coreference condition initially more ambiguous CONTROL EXPERIMENT 2

SOLUTION Use subset of items with no difference between two conditions 24 of original 36 items Variable binding 85.4% and coreference 89.5% SOLUTION

SECOND-PASS DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

CONCLUSION Results still support hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Consistent with the more general claim: semantics before discourse Consistent with a modular view towards anaphoric processing CONCLUSION

HYPOTHESIS 1: EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS variable binding A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men could barely cope. Every working man who was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. coreference A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today the very old man Paul could barely cope. Paul was running out of energy. It was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. HYPOTHESIS 1 experimental conditions

HYPOTHESIS 1: CONTROL CONDITIONS similar to variable binding condition A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men could barely cope. All the working men who were running out of energy, thought it was very nice that they could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. similar to coreference condition A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today the very old man Paul could barely cope. Paul who was running out of energy thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. HYPOTHESIS 1 control conditions

PREDICTIONS Longer reading times in coreference condition than variable binding condition If there is interference between two processes: longer reading times in two control conditions compared to experimental conditions PREDICTIONS

EYE-TRACKING MEASURES First-pass duration: time spent in a region before moving on or looking back Regression path duration: time from first entering a region until moving the eyes beyond that region, includes regression time Second-pass duration: duration of re-fixations Total fixation duration: the sum of all fixations in a region EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENT MEASURES The clown thinks that he is… Reading Times for word 3 (thinks) First-pass duration = Regression Path duration = Second-pass duration = 6 Total duration = EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

REGIONS OF ANALYSIS 1initial region variable binding: Every working man who was running out of energy, 1initial region coreference: Paul was running out of energy. 2pre-critical region variable binding: thought it was very nice 2pre-critical region coreference: It was very nice 3critical region: that he 4spill-over region: could go 5pre-final region: home early 6final region: this afternoon. REGIONS OF ANALYSIS

SECOND-PASS DURATION co-ref: Paul… It was… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

co-ref: Paul… It was… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 1: No significant differences in first-pass, regression path and total fixation duration Significant difference in second-pass duration in first spill over region: longer reading times in variable binding condition Only variable binding condition differed from control conditions RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 1

CONCLUSION No support for hypothesis 1: variable binding is cheaper than coreference No interference between variable binding and coreference Why the difference between Piñango et al. and these results? CONCLUSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION HYPOTHESIS 1 No direct support for hypothesis 1: variable binding is cheaper than coreference GENERAL DISCUSSION hypothesis 1

FOLLOWING BURKHARDT Everyone i thinks that he i is not funny. Every clown i thinks that he i is not funny. The clown i thinks that he i is not funny. EXPLANATION?

FOLLOWING BURKHARDT Everyone i thinks that he i is not funny. quantified non-referential Every clown i thinks that he i is not funny. quantified referential The clown i thinks that he i is not funny. referential EXPLANATION?

PROCESSING COSTS 1)quantified non-referential (everyone) is purely variable binding 2)referential (the clown) is coreference 3)quantified referential (every clown) is coreference associated with additional processing costs because the information about the set, provided by the restrictor clown, has to be transferred to the pronoun (e.g., Burkhardt, 2004) EXPLANATION?

IMPLICATION We used quantified referential dependencies in our variable binding condition. This can explain why variable binding is more difficult than coreference in our stimuli Similar results by Carminati, Frazier & Rayner (2002) IMPLICATION

GENERAL DISCUSSION HYPOTHESIS 2 Support for hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Consistent with the more general claim: semantics before discourse Consistent with a modular view towards anaphoric processing The results for hypothesis 1 require further research GENERAL DISCUSSION hypothesis 2

Thats all for today