Uniqueness and Weak Definites in Spanish

An eye-tracking experiment

Ana Aguilar Guevara

Semantic Structures Utrecht, Feb 2009

Outline

1. Weak definites 2. The experiments

2.1 The Pretests 2.2 The eye-tracking study

3. Conclusion

The man

What is the man doing?

What is the woman doing?

Definites and uniqueness

The Uniqueness Requirement

A definite description (e.g. the woman) is felicitous only if there is at most one entity in the discourse context that satisfies its descriptive content.

Definites and weak definites, and uniqueness

#Mario went to the moon √Lola went to the store

Definites and uniqueness

1) Rosa Maria took Yolanda to the auditorium (regular definite)

2) Jesús is listening to the CD player (regular definite)

3) Mario called the policeman this morning (regular definite)

Definites and weak definites, and uniqueness

1) Rosa Maria took Yolanda to the auditorium (regular definite) 1’) Rosa Maria took Yolanda to the hospital (weak definite)

2) Jesús is listening to the CD player (regular definite) 2’) Jesús is listening to the radio (weak definite)

3) Mario called the policeman this morning (regular definite) 3’) Mario called the doctor this morning (weak definite)

Definites and weak definites in VP elipsis

4) Lola went to the auditorium and Alice did too.[Definite] (Different auditoria are not possible)

5) Lola went to the hospital and Alice did too [Weak definite] (Different hospitals are possible)

Definites, weak definites and indefinites in VP elipsis

4) Lola went to the auditorium and Alice did too.[Definite] (Different auditoria are not possible)

5) Lola went to the hospital and Alice did too [Weak definite] (Different hospitals are possible)

6) Lola went to an auditorium and Alice did too. [Indefinite](Different auditoria are possible)

Weak definites resemble bare singulars

7) They found him in bed.

8) The ship is at sea/ port.

9) He’s in jail/prison/church

Few noun classes can be in weak definites

10) Sue took her nephew to the hospital. [locations]

11) Take the elevator to the 4th floor. [means of transportation]

12) Luisa listened to the radio until she fall asleep. [audiovisual devices]

13) Luisa called the doctor this morning. [professions]

These cannot be substituted by a synonym

14) Scarface is in the pen. vs Scarface is in *the cage1.

15) You should see the doctor. vs You should see *the surgeon.

1 The asterisk in this and the following cases means lack of weak reading

Weak definites only combines with certain verbs and prepositions

16) Kenneth is at the store. vs Kenneth is *behind the store.

17) They took the crash victims to the hospital vs. They took the crash victims *past the hospital.

18) Sally checked the calendar vs *read the calendar.

19) Sally read the newspaper vs checked the newspaper.

Weak definites trigger stereotypicality

20) Laura is in the pen= Laura is incarcerated

21) Eva called the doctor= Eva demanded medical assistance

Summary

• Weak definites do not seem to refer uniquely

• Their distribution is limited

• They resemble indefinites and bare singulars

• They display stereotipicality

Experiments

• Asses uniqueness in regular definites, weak definites and indefinites.

• Two pretests• Eye-tracking experiment

• Spanish versions of Carlson et al (2006)

Pretests

• Asses possible referents of definites and weak definites under VP ellipsis:

4) Lola went to the auditorium and Alice did too. [Definite]

5) Lola went to the hospital and Alice did too. [Weak definite]

Pretest 1

• 19 native speakers of Spanish were presented with written descriptions of two events.

• Two similar events but involving different agents and, crucially, different second participants.

• Second participants referred to by a weak definite or by a regular definite.

• Each description was followed by a summary sentence that refers to the second event in the description via VP ellipsis.

• Participants were asked to evaluate whether the

summary accurately described the events presented in the corresponding description.

Pretest 1

Example with regular definite:

Description: Adán está tomando un helado en ElCampanario y Eva está merendando enVips.               ‘Adán is having an ice cream in El Campanario and Eva is dining at Vips’

Summary sentece:Adán está en el restaurante y Eva también ‘Adán is at the restaurant and Eva too’

Example with weak definite:

Description:Ana está internada en el Ángeles y Pedroestá internado en Medica Sur

‘Ana is at el Ángeles and Pedro is at Medica Sur’

Summary sentence: Ana está en el hospital y Pedro también.

‘Ana is in the hospital and Pedro too’

Question:¿Consideras que esta oración resume apropiadamente la descripción anterior?

‘Do you think that this sentece accurently sumarizes the previous description?’

Pretest 1

• Prediction: Subjects accept that the sentences accurately summarized the description more often when these contain weak definites than when they contain regular definites.

• Results: Prediction attested! 85% of trials with weak definites vs 42% of trials with regular definites

(t(342.647)=9.632, p<.001))

Pretest 2

• 19 native speakers of Spanish were presented with the summary sentences used in Pretest 1.

• They were asked to decide whether it was possible that two entities of the same kind were involved in the events described by the sentences.

Pretest 2

Example with regular definite: Mario está leyendo el libro y Pedro también. ‘Mario is reading the book andPedro too’

Question: ¿Es posible que Manolito y Mafalda están leyendo libros diferentes?

‘Is it possible that Manolito and Mafalda are reading different books?’

Example with weak definite:Manolito está leyendo el periódico y Mafalda también. ‘Manolito is reading thenewspaper and Mafalda too’

Question:¿Es posible que Manolito y Mafaldaestén leyendo periódicos diferentes?

‘Is it possible that Manolito and Mafalda are reading different newspapers?’

Pretest 2

• Prediction: In sentences containing weak definites, subjects would accept that two different entities are involved more often than in sentences contained with regular definites.

• Results: prediction attested! 73% of trials with weak definites vs 41% of trials with regular definites (t(374.545)=6.655, p<.001).

Weak definites selected from the pretests

• Leer el periódico ‘To read the newspaper’

• Lavar el coche‘Wash the car’

• Mirarse en el espejo ‘Look in the mirror’

• Escuchar el radio ‘Listen to the radio’

• Abrir la ventana ‘Open the window’

• Ver la televisión ‘Watch the televisión’

The eye-tracking experiment

• Asses the capacity of weak definites, regular definites and indefinites to pick out a unique entity in online interpretation.

Hypothesis

i) Weak definites are not interpreted on-line the same as regular definites

ii) Weak definites are interpreted on-line the same as indefinites.

Design

• Subjects where presented with sentences containing weak definites, definites or indefinites.

• At the same time, they saw pictures containing single and grouped items that could be the referents of those phrases.

• They were instructed to choose one of these items.

• As they were doing it, I monitored their eye-movements to see to which object their attention was drawn more prominently.

Examples

Mafalda va a escuchar el radio ‘Mafalda is going to listen to the radio’

Mafalda va a escuchar un casete ‘Mafalda is going to listen to a cassette’

Mafalda va a escuchar el disco ‘Mafalda is going to listen to the CD’

weak definite definite indefinite

Predictions (choice singleton/group)

i) Participants are more likely to choose the single object when they hear a definite than when they hear an indefinite or a weak definite.

ii) Participants are more likely to choose one of the grouped

objects when they hear an indefinite or WDef than when they hear a definite.

Predictions (eye-movements)

Asuming that

a) A hearer’s eye movements to objects are usually time locked to the spoken words that refer to those objects.

b) When instructions to manipulate objects involve definites, participant attention is immediately drawn to singleton objects that could be its referent, despite the presence of other objects of the same type that are part of a cohesive group.

…

Predictions (eye-movements)

…then

iii) Participants' attention is going to be drawn to single targets more when they hear a definite than when they hear an indefinite or a weak definite.

iv) Participants' attention is going to be drawn to grouped targets more when they hear an indefinite or a weak definite than when they hear a definite.

Results (choice singleton/group)

For each condition the participants were more likely to chose the single target :

94%88% 88%

6%12% 12%

0%

10%

20%30%

40%

50%

60%

70%80%

90%

100%

WDefs Definite NPs Indefinite NPs

Kind of target NP

Perc

en

tag

e o

f tr

ials

Single target chosen Group target chosen

Results (eye-movements)

i) No significant difference between the time participants spent looking at single targets when they heard weak definites, definites and indefinites.

ii) No significant difference between the time participants spent looking at group targets when they heard weak definites, definites and indefinites.

0.4373519 0.43553440.3775972

0.3111872 0.30222290.3616139

0

0.1

0.20.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.70.8

0.9

1

Wdefs Definie NPs Indefinite NPs

Kind of target NP

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f fi

xati

on

s

Looks at single targets Looks at group targets

Results (eye-movements)

However,

iiia) Significant difference between the time participants spent looking at single and group targets when they heard definites and weak definites (they looked more at the singleton).

iiib) No significant difference between the time participants spent looking at single and group targets, when they heard indefinites.

Discussion

• The results do not necessarily suggest that, in their on-line interpretation, weak definites do not differ from definites.

• Instead, they could be suggesting that there were problems

in the analysis of the data and in the design of the experiment proper. We will discuss them on March 6!

Problem with the analysis

• The window of time I analyzed (the time subjects where hearing the target noun) was probably too short.

Possible solution:

• To analyze a subsequent region (the time that passes after participants hear the target noun).

Problems with the design

• It appears to have induced a learning effect:It was a within-subject design. The target trials were monotonous and numerous.

• Choosing an object in the picture could have made weak definites to lose their weak reading.

Possible solutions:

• A between-subject design

• To eliminate the task of choosing one object in the pictures

A problem pertaining the attempt to assess the interpretation of indefinites

• The indefinite article in Spanish is homophonous with thenumeral uno (‘one’).

Possible solution:

• To run the experiment in a different language (like Dutch).

Conclusions

• I attested differences between the offline interpretation of definites and weak definites as regards their capacity to pick out a unique entity.

• I did not attested differences between the online interpretation of definites, weak definites and indefinites as regards their capacity to pick out a unique entity.