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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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]
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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)
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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)
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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?
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
Material : Fragments of complex sentences: main clause + uncompleted subordinate clause that ended with an ambiguous pronoun following the connective
Experiment 1: Antecedent-Choice
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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 %)
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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?
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
���� 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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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)
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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?
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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?
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
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
Linguistic Evidence, Tübingen, February 2010
Top Related