psy1302 psychology of language

Psy1302 Psy1302 Psychology of LanguagePsychology of Language

Lecture 12Lecture 12Sentence Comprehension IISentence Comprehension II

TodayToday

Revisit lexical and syntactic Revisit lexical and syntactic ambiguity connectionambiguity connection

Critiques of F&CCritiques of F&C Remaining time – Review (Q & A)Remaining time – Review (Q & A)

pitcher + supportive context

port

Equibias

Non-Equibias

+ supportive context

Do you remember this Do you remember this experiment?experiment?

Supportive Context No Supportive Context

Equi-bias and Non-Equibias Nouns

New ViewNew View

Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution is Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution is like Lexical Ambiguity Resolutionlike Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

Lexicalist Based Constraint Lexicalist Based Constraint Satisfaction ViewSatisfaction View

Lexicalist Based Lexicalist Based Constraint Satisfaction Constraint Satisfaction ViewView Lexical entries have information about the Lexical entries have information about the

syntaxsyntax

Lexical information of verbs include e.g.:Lexical information of verbs include e.g.:– what kind of arguments it takeswhat kind of arguments it takes

(e.g., “put” takes NP, PP)(e.g., “put” takes NP, PP)

– thematic role between the verb and its argumentthematic role between the verb and its argument (e.g., patient/theme, goal, etc.)(e.g., patient/theme, goal, etc.)

– syntactic structures & the frequency of occurrencesyntactic structures & the frequency of occurrence

Classic Ambiguous Classic Ambiguous SentenceSentence The horse raced past the barn The horse raced past the barn

fell.fell.

Ambiguous SentencesAmbiguous Sentences

Which one seems more difficult?Which one seems more difficult?

1. The horse raced past the barn fell.1. The horse raced past the barn fell.

2. The horse carried past the barn 2. The horse carried past the barn fell.fell.

Verbs and Structural Verbs and Structural FrequenciesFrequencies

Table from MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg Paper

Syntactic StructuresSyntactic Structures

Verbs differ in preferences (frequencies) for structuresVerbs differ in preferences (frequencies) for structures Which verb you choose for your studies will matterWhich verb you choose for your studies will matter

Past Tense(Main Clause)

Past Participle(Reduced Relative)

....

Equi-bias and Non-Equibias Structures

Table from MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg Paper

examinedNon-Equibias Structures


Past Tense(MC)

Past Participle

(RR)

“The defendant/evidence examined….”

-- Thickness of the line indicates amount of activation.

Various contextual information can Various contextual information can influence the levels of activation.influence the levels of activation.



Past Tense(MC)

Past Participle

(RR)


Thematic information: Thematic information: Can X do the Can X do the examining?examining?– Good agent Good agent reinforce Past Tense (Main Verb) reinforce Past Tense (Main Verb)

readingreading

Past Tense(MC)

Good Agent

Thematic Influence on Equi-bias and Non-Equibias Structures



Past Tense(MC)

Past Participle

(RR)


Thematic information: Thematic information: Can X do the Can X do the examining?examining?– Poor agent Poor agent reinforce Past Participle (Reduced reinforce Past Participle (Reduced

Relative) readingRelative) reading

Past Participle

(RR)

Poor Agent




Past Tense(MC)

Past Participle

(RR)


Thematic information: Thematic information: Can X be examined?Can X be examined?– Poor agent & Good theme Poor agent & Good theme even more strongly even more strongly

reinforce Past Participle (Reduced Relative) readingreinforce Past Participle (Reduced Relative) reading

Past Participle

(RR)

Poor Agent& Good Theme.




Past Tense(MC)

Past Participle

(RR)


Discourse and referential contextDiscourse and referential context– E.g. 2 defendants, one who was examined E.g. 2 defendants, one who was examined

by the lawyer, and one who was not.by the lawyer, and one who was not.

Past Participle

(RR)

2 Referents.


Critiques of F&CCritiques of F&C Experiment 1Experiment 1

– Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994) Thematic (Semantic) Information and Reduced Thematic (Semantic) Information and Reduced

Relative ReadingRelative Reading

Experiment 2 & 3Experiment 2 & 3– Tabossi, Spivey-Knowlton, McRae, & Tabossi, Spivey-Knowlton, McRae, &

Tanenhaus (1994)Tanenhaus (1994)– Britt, Perfetti, Garrod, & Rayner (1992)Britt, Perfetti, Garrod, & Rayner (1992)

Main Clause vs. Reduced RelativeMain Clause vs. Reduced Relative VP-attached vs. NP-attachedVP-attached vs. NP-attached

Ferreira & Clifton (1986)Ferreira & Clifton (1986)

Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:influenced by:1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)

2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)2 & 3)

Ferreira & Clifton Ferreira & Clifton (1986)(1986)Experiment 1Experiment 1

4 Sentence Types:4 Sentence Types:

Reduced, AnimateReduced, AnimateThe defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

Reduced, InanimateReduced, InanimateThe evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

Unreduced, AnimateUnreduced, AnimateThe defendant that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The defendant that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

Unreduced, InanimateUnreduced, InanimateThe evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

DISAMBIGUATING REGION

The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.unreliable. CC-1C-2 C+1 C+2

Animate ReducedAnimate Unreduced

Inanimate ReducedInanimate Unreduced

SLOWFAST

SLOWFAST

SLOWFAST

FASTFAST

MODULAR INTERACTIVE

FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS

ACTUAL RESULTS

Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)(1994)

Critique of Ferreira & CliftonCritique of Ferreira & Clifton

8 out of 16 of Ferreira & Clifton’s 8 out of 16 of Ferreira & Clifton’s INANIMATE items had possible INANIMATE items had possible main clause continuations.main clause continuations.

Examples from F&CExamples from F&CContinue with non-relative clause Continue with non-relative clause reading?reading?

The car towed…The car towed…

The ship sighted…The ship sighted…

The message recorded…The message recorded…

The skin felt…The skin felt…

The trash smelled…The trash smelled…

The car sold…The car sold…

Baldwin screaming at his child.Baldwin screaming at his child.

Cape Cod on November 19, 1620Cape Cod on November 19, 1620

the truck.the truck.

soft.soft.

nasty.nasty.

for a million dollarsfor a million dollars


Experiment 1 StimuliExperimenter made sure inanimate sentences were poor agents

Table 1 from paper

Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)Garnsey (1994)

Experiment 1 First Pass Reading


Experiment 1 Second Pass Reading


Experiment 2 Manipulations Used normed N-V stimuliUsed normed N-V stimuli

– Animates had 100% Main Clause sentence completionAnimates had 100% Main Clause sentence completion– Inanimates had under 30% Main Clause sentence Inanimates had under 30% Main Clause sentence

completioncompletion

Decreased the number of relative clause Decreased the number of relative clause sentences testedsentences tested– Decrease chance of sentence structure becoming Decrease chance of sentence structure becoming

expected or priming other RR sentencesexpected or priming other RR sentences

Used mixed case instead of all upper case.Used mixed case instead of all upper case.– Increased naturalness and ease of text read Increased naturalness and ease of text read – Reduce reading time Reduce reading time reduce processing/ambiguity reduce processing/ambiguity

resolution timeresolution time

Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)Garnsey (1994) Inanimate stimuli were “bad agents”Inanimate stimuli were “bad agents” Were the stimuli “good Were the stimuli “good

patient/theme”?patient/theme”? Rating Task: Rating Task:

– ““How typical is it for the evidence to examine How typical is it for the evidence to examine something?”something?”

– ““How typical is it for the evidence to be How typical is it for the evidence to be examined by someone?” examined by someone?” 1 = not typical, 7 = typical

Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)Garnsey (1994)

p < .05 = statistically significant

High Rating (good theme/patient) = Short Reading time (easier processing)


Strong Semantic fit defined as: Agent rating < 2.0, and Patient rating > 5.0Weak Semantic Fit: remaining items.

Y-axis Reading Time Difference = Reduced minus Unreduced Relative Clause

Weak fit InanimatesStrong Fit Inanimates

Unambiguous (e.g. drawn)

examined by the lawyer

Weak fitAnimates

examined by the lawyer


Thematic information: Thematic information: Can X do the examining?Can X do the examining?+ Good agent + Good agent reinforce Past Tense (Main Verb) reading reinforce Past Tense (Main Verb) reading

+ Poor agent + Poor agent reinforce Past Participle (Reduced Relative) reinforce Past Participle (Reduced Relative) readingreading

+ Poor agent & Good theme + Poor agent & Good theme even more strongly even more strongly reinforce Past Participle (Reduced Relative) readingreinforce Past Participle (Reduced Relative) reading


Past Tense(MC)

Past Participle

(RR)


F&C’s Inanimates

PT(MC)

PP(RR)

20

25

30

35

40

45

examined by thelawyer

turned out

Rea

ding

T

ime

Animate ReducedAnimate UnreducedInanimate ReducedInanimate Unreduced

0

5

10

15

20

25

examined by thelawyer

turned out

Animate ReducedAnimate UnreducedInanimate ReducedInanimate Unreduced

F&C: Exp. 1 Data RevisitedF&C: Exp. 1 Data Revisited

Ferreira & Clifton (1986)Ferreira & Clifton (1986)

Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:influenced by:1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)

2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)2 & 3)

1.What was tested?2.Critiques?

Main Clause vs. Reduced Main Clause vs. Reduced RelativeRelative Main Clause frequency is 12x that of Main Clause frequency is 12x that of

Reduced RelativeReduced Relative

Past Tense(Main Clause)

Past Participle(Reduced Relative)

Context has to be really strong to Context has to be really strong to overcome Main Clause reading!overcome Main Clause reading!

Complete the sentence Complete the sentence #1#1

John worked as a reporter for a big city John worked as a reporter for a big city newspaper. He sensed that a major story newspaper. He sensed that a major story was brewing over the city hall scandal, and was brewing over the city hall scandal, and he obtained some evidence that he believed he obtained some evidence that he believed pretty much established the mayor’s guilt. pretty much established the mayor’s guilt. He went to his editors with a tape and some He went to his editors with a tape and some photos because he needed their approval photos because he needed their approval before he could go ahead with the story. He before he could go ahead with the story. He ran a tape for one of his editors, and he ran a tape for one of his editors, and he showed some photos to the other. The editor showed some photos to the other. The editor played the tape…played the tape…

Tally up homework survey

Complete the sentence #1Complete the sentence #1how did your friend complete the how did your friend complete the sentence/paragraph?sentence/paragraph?

““played the tape”…played the tape”…– Main ClauseMain Clause– Reduced Relative ClauseReduced Relative Clause– OtherOther

NP VP

S

VP

NPV

CONJ VP

NPV

The editor

playedthe tape and liked it

MAIN CLAUSE REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE

NP

VP

S

NPNP

V

VP

NPV

The man playedthe tape liked it

NP

t

S

Main Clause vs. Reduced Main Clause vs. Reduced RelativeRelative F&C’s context is weakF&C’s context is weak

– Context is weak as determined by other Context is weak as determined by other researchers using sentence completion at researchers using sentence completion at point of ambiguity.point of ambiguity.

– Context is insufficient to overcome preference Context is insufficient to overcome preference for reduced relative clause readingfor reduced relative clause reading

Context might just be enough to make Context might just be enough to make relative clause in competition with the relative clause in competition with the dominant main verb reading dominant main verb reading Increased Increased reading timesreading times– (F&C Exp 3)(F&C Exp 3)

F&C: Experiment 2 & 3F&C: Experiment 2 & 3Referential Context InformationReferential Context Information

Support + NMA

Support + MA

No Support + MA

No Support + NMA

F&C: Experiment 3F&C: Experiment 3

FasterWith context.

SlowerWith context.Context x

Attachment Effect!!!

F&C: Experiment 3F&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 with Replication of Experiment 2 with another methodanother method

Context supporting Minimal Context supporting Minimal Attachment Reduces Reading Attachment Reduces Reading TimeTime

Context supporting Non-Minimal Context supporting Non-Minimal Attachment Increases Reading Attachment Increases Reading TimeTime

Why?Why?PT

(MC)PP

(RR)

+MA supportive context

MA sentence NMA sentence

PT(MC)

PP(RR)

+NMA supportive context

PT(MC)

PP(RR)

PT(MC)

PP(RR)

VP-attached vs. NP-VP-attached vs. NP-attachedattached Last lecture, we saw a case where Last lecture, we saw a case where

referential context affects VP vs. referential context affects VP vs. NP attachment preference.NP attachment preference.

What’s going on in F&C’s study?What’s going on in F&C’s study?

Complete the sentence Complete the sentence #2#2

Sam worked at a factory Sam worked at a factory warehouse. His job was to make sure warehouse. His job was to make sure that boxes of merchandise were ready that boxes of merchandise were ready to be delivered. Sam had to fill up a to be delivered. Sam had to fill up a van so it could go out. He had a pile of van so it could go out. He had a pile of boxes on a cart and another pile on boxes on a cart and another pile on the floor. He knew some guys from the floor. He knew some guys from another department needed the cart. another department needed the cart. Sam loaded the boxes on the cart…Sam loaded the boxes on the cart…

Tally up homework survey

Complete the sentence Complete the sentence #2#2““on the cart”:on the cart”:

– VP-attachedVP-attached– NP-attachedNP-attached– OtherOther

NP PP

S

VP

NPV

Sam the boxes

PP

loaded on the cart before lunch

S

VPNP

V

NP

NP PP

PP

onto the vanSam the boxesloaded on the cart

VP-attached NP-attached

VP-attached vs. NP-VP-attached vs. NP-attachedattached

PPVP-Attached

PPNP-Attached

PUT (V): NP, PP


Lexical Biases of Verbs in F&C Lexical Biases of Verbs in F&C – Verbs highly supportive of VP-attached Verbs highly supportive of VP-attached

reading over NP-attached readingreading over NP-attached reading E.g. “load”, “place” expect PP.E.g. “load”, “place” expect PP. ““Sam loaded the boxes on the cart.”Sam loaded the boxes on the cart.”

– VP-attached frequentVP-attached frequent


What if we used other verbs? What if we used other verbs? (Britt et al. (Britt et al. 1992)1992)

Peter read the books on the chair instead of lying in Peter read the books on the chair instead of lying in bedbed

(VP-attachment)(VP-attachment)

Peter read the books on the chair instead of the other Peter read the books on the chair instead of the other booksbooks

(NP-attachment)(NP-attachment)

Peter read the books on the war instead of the other Peter read the books on the war instead of the other booksbooks

(NP-attachment)(NP-attachment)

1.

2.

3.

1 vs. 3 in neutral context. VP-attachment is read faster1 vs. 3 in supportive context. Both equally fast.1 vs. 2 in neutral context. VP-attachment is faster.1 vs. 2 in supportive context. Both equally fast.

Think about analogy to lexical ambiguities!

Models of Sentence Models of Sentence ProcessingProcessing Garden-Path ModelGarden-Path Model

– AutonomousAutonomous Late closureLate closure Minimal attachmentMinimal attachment

Constraint-Based ModelConstraint-Based Model– InteractiveInteractive

Lexical BiasesLexical Biases Referential ContextsReferential Contexts Structural BiasesStructural Biases }

Cues from multiple sourcesconstrain interpretation

Final Word of CautionFinal Word of Caution

(a quote from MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994)(a quote from MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994)

[A]lthough the architecture… affords the [A]lthough the architecture… affords the possibility of continuous interaction possibility of continuous interaction between contextual information and the between contextual information and the lexicon, the effects of contexts tend to lexicon, the effects of contexts tend to be more retroactive than proactive…. be more retroactive than proactive….

[L]ess information is needed to [L]ess information is needed to discriminate between two alternatives discriminate between two alternatives than to preselect one of them.than to preselect one of them.

psy1302 psychology of language

Documents

nonequibias structurestable

thematic influence

thematic semantic information

thematicsemantic information

reduced relativevp

relative readingexperiment

good agent

poor agent good theme