interpreting pronouns referring to the arguments of...

Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010

Interpreting Pronouns Referring to the Arguments of Experiencer/Stimulus Verbs:Reversed Antecedent Preferences for Causal and Consecutive Connectives

Berry Claus and Kalliopi VozikakiPsycholinguistics GroupSaarland University

Outline

Interpretation of ambiguous pronouns: Effect of connective

Implicit causality

Implicit consequentiality

Empirical Study: two experiments


Implicit Causality

Verbs that denote interpersonal states or events, such as confess, blame, impress, admire, can exhibit implicit causality (cf. Garvey & Caramazza, 1974)

� implicitly convey information as to which of the verb’s arguments is the underlying cause


Empirical findings � implicit-causality bias: implicit causality affects the resolution of pronouns in causal subordinate clauses (e.g., Caramazza et al., 1977)

ExamplesJim confessed to Joe because he …Joe blamed Jim because he …

� preference to resolve the pronoun with the implicated cause (e.g., Jim)

(NP1 verb) (NP2 verb)

Implicit-Causality Bias


Controversy: Are implicit-causality effects due to immediate focussing or due to clausal integration (of explicit cause)?

� Early or late effect?

Evidence for implicit-causality bias (i.a.)

from reading-time studies: e.g., faster reading times with bias-congruent than with bias-incongruent endings (Jim confessed to Joebecause he wanted a reduced sentence / because he offered a reduced sentence)

from sentence-completion studies: proportion of reference in continuations of sentence fragments

Implicit Causality: Early Effect

Evidence for early effectKoornneef & van Berkum (2006): Individuals with different gender � unambiguous pronoun that indicates congruence/incongruenceExampleDavid and Linda were both driving pretty fast. At a busy intersection they crashed hard into each other. David apologized to Linda because he according to the witnesses was the one to blame. [congruent] / Linda apologized to David because he according to the witnesses was not the one to blame. [incongruent]


Reading-time data (word-by-word) and eye movement data: Effect of congruency at pronoun/next word

Event-related potential study by van Berkum et al. (2007): replication of the early effect of congruence

Findings are inconsistent with causal-integration account (late effect)

But: findings do not provide evidence for strong version of focusing account � already at verb

Implicit Consequentiality

Stewart et al. (1998): Implicit-consequentiality bias?Material: Implicit-causality verbs in causal subordinate clauses � denoted events/states are described as causeExample Because John annoyed Bill, … (implicit causality: NP1 verb)


Sentence-completion task: more references to non-cause argument (e.g., Bill), i.e., the bearer of the consequences � reversed preference: implicit-consequentiality bias

Additional experiment: reading times of clauses expressing consequences either congruent or incongruent with implicit-consequentiality biasBecause John annoyed Bill, he complained to the art teacher. [congruent]he was punished by the art teacher. [incongruent]

� longer reading times for incongruent versions

Role of Connective (causal/consecutive)

Further evidence for reversed bias from sentence-completion studies that manipulated the connective: causal because vs. consecutive so(Au, 1986; Stevenson et al., 1994; Stevenson et al., 2000)


Stevenson et al. (2000): Clear reversed pattern for mental state verbs that involve the thematic roles of Experiencer and StimulusExamplesKen[Stimulus] impressed Geoff[Experiencer] because / so he … [SE verb]Geoff[Experiencer] admired Ken[Stimulus] because / so he … [ES verb]

Causal because: continuations � more Stimulus interpretationsConsecutive so: continuations � more Experiencer interpretations

reserved pattern � pronoun-interpretation bias may depend on connective

However, finding is based on a sentence-completion task that involves language production components

This Study

� Two experiments (in German): Experiencer/Stimulus verbs (SE + ES)

Does the effect of connective type on the interpreta tion of ambiguous pronouns also obtain in tasks that focus on comprehen sion?


Experiment 1: Antecedent-Choice

Experimental items : Manipulation of connective � causal / consecutiveMain clause: Stimulus-Experiencer- (SE) or Experiencer-Stimulus-Verb (ES)

ExamplesSE: The gardener irritates the golfer because / so he …

[Der Gärtner irritiert den Golfspieler, weil / so dass er …]

ES: The acrobat envies the juggler because / so he …[Der Akrobat beneidet den Jongleur, weil / so dass er…]

Antecedent-choice taskParticipants had to choose between two possible antecedents of an ambiguous pronoun


Material : Fragments of complex sentences: main clause + uncompleted subordinate clause that ended with an ambiguous pronoun following the connective

Experiment 1: Antecedent-Choice


The gardener irritates the golfer because / so he …gardener golfer

Participants had to judge to which individual the pronoun referred to by clicking on either of the two nouns

24 experimental items (12 SE-verbs + 12 ES-verbs) and 24 filler items 32 participants

Procedure : Each fragment was presented on a separate screenBelow each segment: two alternatives

� Does the manipulation of the connective affect the antecedent choices?

Experiment 1: Results

Antecedent Choices (in %)


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Experiencer Stimulus

because becauseso so

Experiment 2: Visual World

Does the effect of connective type also occur with more natural language comprehension, i.e., in an online sentence-processing task without explicitly drawing participants’ attention to the interpretation of the pronoun?


�� Visual-World ParadigmLook and listen; Participants were presented with pictures and simultaneously listened to sentences

Excursus: Visual-World Paradigm

Monitoring participant’s eye movements while they listen to spoken text and view pictures of individuals and objects

� Language mediated eye movements in the visual world


Looks to entities that are referred to (e.g., Tanenhaus et al., 1995)

Anticipatory looks towards probably upcoming objects (e.g., Kamide et al., 2003)Looks triggered by pronouns (e.g., Järvikivi et al., 2005)

Example (from Altmann & Kamide, 1999, modified)

Viewing: scene showing a boy, a cake, and some toysHearing: The boy will eat the cake. He is hungry.

boy � looks to depicted boyeat � looks to depicted cakehe � looks to depicted boy

Turning back to Experiment 2


Spoken sentences : Complex sentences: main clause + uncompleted subordinate clause that ended with an ambiguous pronoun following the connective

Experimental sentences : Completed versions of the sentences used in Experiment 1, each in two versions: because / soExamplesSE: The gardener irritates the golfer because / so he constantly

walks across the golf course.hits behind the ball.

[Der Gärtner irritiert den Golfspieler, weil / so dass er ständigüber den Golfplatz läuft / neben den Ball schlägt.]

The acrobat envies the juggler because / so he alwaysgets more applause.is very begrudging.

[Der Akrobat beneidet den Jongleur, weil / so dass er immermehr Applaus bekommt / sehr missgünstig ist.]

ES:

Experiment 2: Material (cont)


Visually presented displays : Pictures of four entities: two individuals mentioned in main clause + two distractor objects

Experimental items : Pictures of Experiencer and Stimulus (+ two distractor objects)

The gardener irritates the golfer because / so he constantly

walks across the golf course.hits behind the ball.

The acrobat envies the juggler because / so he always

gets more applause.is very begrudging.

Experiment 2: Looks


Procedure : Each trial started with the presentation of the visual display;after a preview of 1000ms, the spoken sentence was presented (while the depicted objects remained onscreen)

comprehension questions after 1/3 of the trials

24 experimental items (12 SE-verbs + 12 ES-verbs) and 28 filler items 36 participants

� Does the manipulation of the connective affect the proportion of looks to the depicted Experiencer/Stimulus and when does this effect occur?

Data were analyzed in different temporal regions:pronoun , adverb , and the 500ms-interval following the adverb

The gardener irritates the golfer because / so he constantly […]500msThe acrobat envies the juggler because / so he always […]500ms

Experiment 2: Results


Proportion of looks during the 500ms following the adv erb offset

.05

.10

.15

.20

.25

.30

.35

Experiencer Stimulusbecause becauseso so

During pronoun and adverb: no effect of connective

500ms following adverb offset: interaction of connective and thematic role

Summary


Experiment 1 – Antecedent Choice : Effect of connective on antecedent choices � causal: preference for Stimulus, consecutive: preference for Experiencer

Experiment 2 – Visual World : Effect of connective on looks � causal: more looks to Stimulus, consecutive: more looks to Experiencer

Evidence for reversed antecedent preferences for causal/consecutive connectives (in line with Stevenson et al., 2000; Stewart et al., 1998)

� May indicate that the implicit-causality bias hinges on the causal connective rather than being due to an immediate focusing on theimplicated cause driven by the verb

Late Effect in Experiment 2?


Experiment 2: Effect of connective was not an immediate effect; it did not occur before adverb offset

“late” effect could be due to (a methodological flaw in) the material:connective + pronoun immediately followed NP2

Currently: experiment with intervening additional words in between NP2 and connective (reference to an object on a scene that shows also Experiencer + Stimulus who are introduced by proper names, rather than role descriptions)

Other approach wrt time course issue: following Koornneef & van Berkum, 2006: two characters with different gender: preference-congruent vs. incongruent pronoun� eye movements during reading

Other Implicit-Causality-Verbs?


Current study: only Experiencer/Stimulus verbs

Experiencer/Stimulus verbs may be special- strong implicit-causality bias on antecedent preferences- clear reversed pattern for the two connectives in the Stevenson et al. study- no clear preference in the absence of a causal/consecutive connective (Source/Goal-verbs and Agent/Patient verbs: preference for role associated with consequences [Goal, Patient])

Stewart et al. (1998; sentence completion): no reversed antecedent preferences for action verbs such as thank, accuse (Rudolph & Försterling: Agent-Evocator verbs)� e.g., preference for NP2 with Bill accused Ted because he … and with Because Bill accused Ted, he …

?Reversed antecedent preferences for the two connectives for other examples of implicit-causality verbs, e.g., those denoting actions?

That’s it

Thanks to

Regine Bader and Emilia Ellsiepen for their assistance in conducting Experiment 2

and to you for your attention


interpreting pronouns referring to the arguments of...

Documents