Sturt, Patrick

Çokal, Derya

Edinburgh Research Explorer

     Edinburgh Research Explorer                                      Resumptive pronouns and active dependency formationCitation for published version:Çokal, D & Sturt, P 2017, 'Resumptive pronouns and active dependency formation' CUNY SentenceProcessing Conference, Boston, United States, 31/03/17, .Link:Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research ExplorerGeneral rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorercontent complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright pleasecontact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately andinvestigate your claim.Download date: 05. Apr. 2019Resumptive pronouns and active dependency formation	Derya Çokal & Patrick Sturt  Department of Philosophy, Durham University; Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University; Department of Psychology,  University of Edinburgh		 	 	 	 	 contact mail: derya.cokal@durham.ac.uk	 BACKGROUND Resumptive pronouns (RPs)  are overt pronouns where a gap would normally be expected: (1) Example with a RP: Jane liked the magazine that the hairdresser had talked about it before going to the salon. (2) Example with a gap: Jane liked the magazine that the hairdresser had talked about  before going to the salon.    RPs are ungrammatical in English.   It has been suggested RPs can facilitate sentence comprehension (Beltrama, & Xiang, 2016).     RPs are acceptable under certain conditions (Hofmeister &Norcliffe, 2013).       (e.g., When RPs appear in contexts where a gap would cause an island violation [Beltrama, & Xiang, 2016]).      Most studies have focused on how RPs affect global acceptability. Here we report: (a)  how RPs are processed during incremental comprehension,  and (b) how this relates to reading skill.  Active dependency formation: Filler-gap dependencies are formed actively (Frazier, 1987).  However, active dependency formation is sensitive to islands and thus such a filled gap effect is ineffective in sentences with islands (Stowe, 1986; Traxler & Pickering, 1996) Our predictions:	 Relying on active dependency formation, we predict:	(1)  If filler-gap dependencies are formed actively, then  processing difficulty should be observed in [1] at or around the RP (it), due to the disconfirmed prediction of a gap in this position.	(2) If active dependency formation is sensitive to islands, such a filled gap effect should not be observed in [2], where it appears inside a strong (relative clause) island.	Experiment 1	Method	 (n=40) Native English-speaking volunteers: 40 items, eye-tracking during reading, Eyelink 1000K (SR Research Ltd), (non-island vs. island) (pronoun vs. gap)	Conditions	[1] RPs in the non-island condition. 	(e.g.) Jane liked the magazine that the hairdresser had talked/ about it/ before/ going to/the salon.	[2] RPs in the island condition. 	(e.g.) Jane liked the magazine that the hairdresser [RC who had talked/ about it/ before/going to/ the salon] bought.	[3] A gap in the non-island condition.	(e.g.) Jane liked the magazine that the hairdresser had talked/ about/ before/ going to/ the salon.	[4] A gap in the island condition. 	(e.g.) Jane liked the magazine that the hairdresser [RC who had talked/ about/ before/ going to/ the salon] bought.	Results	As predicted, LMER analyses of multiple eye-movement measures in regions at or following the pronoun/gap-site revealed:  	 active dependency formation lead to interaction in the non-island context and processing difficulties in [1] relative to a gap in [3] due to the filled gap effect.	  However, this contrast is not seen in the island context.  	Method	 The method was identical to that used in Experiment 1.	Conditions:	1/2- RP or a gap  in that complement condition (corresponding to non-island in Exp 1) 	 This is the magazine that Jane said that the hairdresser had talked/	about (it)/ before/ going to/ the salon. 	3/4- RPs or a gap in the weak island condition.	 This is the magazine that Jane wondered whether the hairdresser had talked/	about (it)/ before/ going to/ the salon.	Results		 	 	 	 	 	OVERALL RESULTS FROM EYE-TRACKING EXPERIMENT	 RPs are subject to well-known processing biases relating to active dependency formation and island sensitivity.	LMER participants with high scores: t= 5.047; low scores: t= 2.747     LMER participants with high scores: t= -2.275;  low scores: t= -1.819 	   Nelson Denny Test was used. 	 (1) The magnitude of the observed two-way interaction in each experiment was greater for high-skilled readers than for low-skilled readers	 (2) This indicates that active dependency formation and/or island sensitivity is subject to individual differences in skill.	Experiment 2	0	50	100	150	200	250	300	350	Island	 Nonisland	Fixation times in ms	Second pass reading times in Experiment 1	RP	GAP 	"Before" Region LMER analysis: second pass reading times: t=5.693	0	5	10	15	20	25	30	Island	 Nonisland	Percentages of regressions out	"Going to" Region	First-pass regressions out in Experiment 1	RP	GAP	LMER analysis: first-pass regressions out : Z= 3.629	LMER analysis: total pass reading times: t= 4.529	 LMER analysis: second pass reading times: t= 2.913	LMER analysis: regression path times: t = 2.455	LMER analysis: regression path times: t = 2.473	 LMER analysis: regression path times: t =2.502	INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN 	      EXPERIMENTS 1 & 2	0	100	200	300	400	500	600	Whether	 That 	 Whether	 That 	High Score	 Low Score	Fixation times in ms	"Before” Region	Regression Path Times in Experiment 2	RP	GAP 	0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Island Nonisland Island Nonisland High Score Low Score Fixation times in ms "Before” region Second Pass Reading Times in Experiment 1 RP GAP  0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Island Nonisland Fixation Times in ms "About it" Region  Second pass reading times  in Experiment 1 RP GAP  0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Whether That Region 3 Fixation times in ms  "Before" Region Regression path times in Experiment 2 RP GAP 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Whether That Fixation times in ms "Before " Region Second pass reading times in Experiment 2 RP GAP 0	100	200	300	400	500	600	Whether	 That	Fixation times in ms	"Going to" Region	Regression Path Times in Experiment 2	RP	GAP	

Resumptive pronouns and active dependency formation

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/37485054/Resumptive_pronouns_and_active_dependency_formation.pdf

Resumptive pronouns and active dependency formation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer