Presentations

Abstract

Errors in subject-verb agreement are often misperceived: erroneous utterances like ‘’The key to the cabinets *were’’ elicit the illusory acceptability of ungrammatical verbs (‘attraction’; e.g. Wagers et al, 2009) and an increase in non-literal responses to comprehension questions asking about the number of the head (accepting ‘’keys’’ as the head; Patson & Husband, 2016). In a visual-world eye-tracking experiment, we demonstrated that both phenomena have the same source: individuals fixate a plural version of the head noun in response to hearing plural cues from other nouns in the sentence as well as in response to an ungrammatical plural verb.

Abstract

Garden-path sentences, where later syntactic information makes an initial structure infelicitous (While Mark investigated the murder occurred), require reconciliation of conflicting semantic and syntactic cues, providing insight on what mechanisms drive syntactic repair and how initial incorrect parses affect comprehension. Previous work has shown that reading times at disambiguation regions (occurred) remain unaffected despite semantic biases, suggesting separate mechanisms for semantic processing and syntactic repair. We investigated the integration of information in garden-path sentence reading in a self-paced reading experiment, varying the presentation order of sentences and comprehension questions. Questions preceding sentences provide a strong cue to direct reading effort, potentially facilitating processing. We found that preceding comprehension questions resulted in longer response times and longer overall reading times while not affecting response accuracy. This suggests that comprehension questions alter participants’ strategies in reading but do not affect representations obtained, calling into question the link between reading times and comprehension.

Abstract

This study investigates the antecedent retrieval process of three anaphoric constructions, NP-ellipsis (NPE), Anaphoric One and Pronoun (Pro). Two eye-tracking while reading experiments and a self-paced reading experiment showed that while NPE exhibited an illusion of grammaticality (the agreement attraction effect in ungrammatical sentences), One and Pro did not, and thus, the antecedent is retrieved from memory differently in the processing of NPE, and One/Pro. We suggest that the structure is built at the NPE-site, where the reanalysis is prompted when the mismatch between the retrieved NP and the verb arises.

Abstract

We investigate how wh-fillers are maintained in memory in two wh-filler-gap dependency (WhFGD) formations: "reactivated" WhFGD formation (the filler is linked to the verb once and the wh-filler is reactivated later) and "active" WhFGD formation. We ask whether Wh-fillers are maintained in a distinguished memory state until the dependency is resolved. No agreement attraction is observed for the coordination sentences, suggesting that only partial information (e.g., the head or the syntactic category of the NP) is retrieved. The active-filler showed agreement attraction, where the wh-dependency is kept until the licensor appears, suggesting fine-grained information is maintained for the active filler.

Abstract

While research suggests that L2 speakers rely more heavily on discourse cues than L1 speakers during real-time processing (Cunnings, 2017), how discourse and grammatical cues interact in L1 and L2 comprehension remains of interest. The present study investigates how the plural grammatical cue of English singular they(a grammatically plural pronoun used to refer to a grammatically singular antecedent; Figure 1) interacts with discourse cues (referential status) of the antecedent to shape L1 and L2 speakers’ real-time processing and final interpretations. In a self-paced reading task, L1 English monolinguals and L1 German-L2 English speakers read sentences containing either a referential (e.g., that jogger at the intersection) or a nonreferential (e.g., a jogger) antecedent. A second clause referred to this antecedent using a grammatically singular (he/she) or plural (they) pronoun. Following each sentence, participants indicated whether the subject was singular or plural. L1 and L2 English speakers showed no reading time differences for they vs. he/she in either referential context (Figure 2), suggesting that neither group had difficulty integrating the plural feature of they while reading. Interpretation responses revealed that L1 and L2 speakers were more likely to interpret the subject as plural with nonreferential than referential antecedents. L1 speakers also showed an increase in plural responses in nonreferential contexts after reading they vs. he/she, but not in referential contexts (Figure 3); L2 speakers showed an increase in plural responses after reading they vs. he/she in both referential contexts (Figure 4). These results suggest that the L2 speakers were not sensitive to the interaction between the grammatical cues of singular they and the discourse (referential) cues of the antecedent. The L1 speakers’ interpretations, conversely, were modulated by the discourse cue of the antecedent. This highlights that L2speakers may not always privilege discourse over grammatical cues during language processing.

Abstract

Adopting a cue-based retrieval account of language processing, we investigate how L1 and L2 English speakers use competing number cues when interpreting English singular they. In a self-paced reading task, participants read sentences containing referential (e.g., that jogger) or nonreferential (e.g., a jogger) subjects, which were referred to using singular (he/she) or plural (they) pronouns. When interpreting the number of the subject noun phrase, L1 speakers exhibited an interaction between pronoun type and referential status of the antecedent. L2 speakers showed no such interaction, suggesting that they may be less able to integrate multiple, potentially conflicting cues than L1 speakers.

Abstract

In recent years, the theory that prediction is an important part of language processing has gained considerable attention (see Huettig, 2015, for overview). There is a large body of empirical evidence which suggests that language users’ ability to anticipate interlocutors’ upcoming utterances is one of the reasons why interactive speech can be so effortless, smooth, and efficient in nature (e.g. Wicha et al., 2004; van Berkum et al., 2005). The present study aimed to investigate whether the language production module is affected by prediction of another individual’s utterances using a joint language production task designed to establish whether simulation of an interlocutor’s utterance occurs automatically, even if this hinders one’s own speech production. The experiment aimed to replicate the finding of an interference effect in a joint naming task (Gambi et al., 2015), and investigate whether the same patterns could be found within a clearer social context where a partner was co-present in the same room. Participants named pictures of objects while their partners concurrently named or categorised congruent or incongruent stimuli. Analyses of naming onset latencies indicate that individuals may partially co-represent their partner’s utterances and that this shared representation influences language production. Congruency in task and stimuli display facilitated naming compared to incongruent trials which showed a tendency to impede production latencies. This finding of a social effect in a setting where simulation of language content is not necessary may suggest that some kind of anticipatory processing is an underlying feature of comprehension.

Abstract

Previous work on memory phenomena shows that pictures and words lead to a production effect, i.e. better memory for aloud than silent items, and that this interacts with the picture superiority effect, i.e. better memory for pictures than words (Fawcett, Quinlan and Taylor, 2012). We investigated the role of the generation effect, i.e. improved memory for generated words, in picture naming. As picture naming requires participants to think of an appropriate label, a generation effect might be elicited for pictures but not words. Forty-two participants named pictures silently or aloud and were given the correct picture name or an unreadable label; all conditions included pictures to control for the picture superiority effect. Memory was then tested using a yes/no recognition task. We found a production effect (p < 0.001) showing the role of articulation in memory, a generation effect (p < 0.001) showing the role of lexical access in memory, and an interaction (p <0.05) between the two suggesting the non-independence of the effects. Ongoing work further tests the role of label reliability in eliciting these effects. This research demonstrates a role for the generation effect in picture naming, with implications for memory asymmetries at different stages in language production.