Kwon, Nayoung

Sturt, Patrick

Edinburgh Research Explorer

     Edinburgh Research Explorer                                      The role of retrieval interference in recovery fromungrammaticalityCitation for published version:Sturt, P & Kwon, N 2016, 'The role of retrieval interference in recovery from ungrammaticality'.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. 2019THEU NI V E R SI TYOFED I N B URGHThe role of retrieval interference in recovery fromungrammaticalityPatrick Sturt 1 Nayoung Kwon 2patrick.sturt@ed.ac.uk1University of Edinburgh2Konkuk UniversityBackgroundI Subject-verb number agreement is affected by attraction (e.g. Wagers et al(2009, JML); Lago et al (2015, JML)):I Processing difficulty for ungrammatical agreement is reduced in presence of matchingattractor:Easier (matching distractor) [from Lago et al, 2015]The players that the coach were always praising very enthusiastically decided to leavethe team.Harder (mismatching distractor) [from Lago et al, 2015]The player that the coach were always praising very enthusiastically decided to leavethe team.I In cue-based retrieval models (e.g. Lewis & Vasishth, 2015, CognitiveScience), this attraction effect is due to occasional mis-retrieval of thematching distractor (e.g. players).I Lago et al (2015) argued that attraction affects error-based processingfollowing the initial encounter with the ungrammatical verb, rather than initialretrievalI Lago et al found evidence of an earlier onset of basic grammaticality effect (was vs. were)),relative to attraction effect.IHowever, Lago et al’s analysis was based on spill-over region in self-pacedreadingI Hard to judge true onset of grammaticality effect, due to different verbs in critical verbregion (was vs. were))The current experiment1a. Ungrammatical: Matching distractorThe nurse who the widows relied on definitely/ were/ reluctant/ towork/ long shifts.1b. Ungrammatical: Mismatching distractorThe nurse who the widow relied on definitely/ were/ reluctant/ to work/long shifts.1c. GrammaticalThe nurses who the widow relied on definitely/ were/ reluctant/ towork/ long shifts.IEye-tracking experiment designed to compare onset of grammaticality effect((1a,1b) > 1c) and attraction effect (1a>1b)ICritical verb (were) identical in all three conditions, allowing examination ofearliest possible evidence of grammaticality effectI Items adapted from Dillon et al (2013, JML), but altered to have distractor insubject position (deliberately designed to maximize attraction effect)IDesign focused on attraction in ungrammatical sentences, so included only onegrammatical conditionI 16 items per condition (48 items overall), so reasonable power to detect effectI 39 participants; 48 sentences; Eyelink 1000Analysis measuresFirst-pass Reading TimeSum of fixation durations from first entry into region until first exitGo-Past time (main measure of interest)The time taken to “go past” a region: sum of fixation durations from thefirst entry into the region from the left, to the first exit to the rightProportion of First-pass regressionsProportion of trials where the first exit from the region is a regression.Leftward shifting procedureIBecause of short, high frequency critical word (were) left boundary ofregion could be iteratively moved to left, if no first-pass fixation inregion (up to maximum of 4 characters) [see also Sturt (2003)]IProcedure increased 1st-pass fixation rate 60% → 86%Eye-movement measure resultsdefinitely were reluctant to work200250300350400ms ecGrammaticalUngrammatical (mis-matching attractor)Ungrammatical (matching attractor)First Pass Reading Timedefinitely were reluctant to workPercent regressions05101520253035404550556065707580859095100P er ce nt  re gr es si on sFirst-Pass regressions outdefinitely were reluctant to work200250300350400450500550600ms ecGrammaticalUngrammatical (mis-matching attractor)Ungrammatical (matching attractor)Go-Past Time Verb(were)  Verb+1(reluctant) Verb+2(to work)-50050100150200Go -P as t  d if f er en ceUngr (Mismatching distractor) minus Ungr (Matching distractor)Ungr Matching distractor minus GrammaticalGo-Past: Magnitude of mismatch effect (differences)IEarly grammaticality effect in reading time measures in critical region(Ungrammatical conditions > grammatical)IAttraction effect in later regions (Mismatching distractor > Matchingdistractor)I In go-past (reflecting reader’s progression through sentence), attraction effectincreases across regionsI Suggests that matching distractor reduces the duration of processing difficulty, not its onset.IHowever, marginal attraction effect in critical region in first-pass regressionsVincentile Plots for critical word “were”IVincentile plots: divide data of critical region for each participant into fourquartiles per subject per condition (see also Lago et al)IPlot each quartile collapsing over participants1 2 3 4VINCENTILE100200300400500ms ecGrammaticalUngrammatical (mismatching distractor)Ungrammatical (matching distractor)FIRST PASS: VINCENTILE PLOTcritical word: were1 2 3 4VINCENTILE02004006008001000ms ecGrammaticalUngrammatical (mismatching distractor)Ungrammatical (matching distractor)GO-PAST: VINCENTILE PLOTcritical word: wereIVincentile × condition interaction for both measures (p’s < .05)I Shows that grammaticality effect first emerges in relatively slow trials (late vincentiles)INo reliable difference between two ungrammatical conditions (i.e. similartime-course, regardless of matching of distractorSummaryIOnset of mismatch cost not reliably affected by matching of distractor induration-based measuresI Long duration of processing difficulty in mismatching distractor ungrammaticalconditionIQuick recovery in matching distractor conditionIAttraction seems to affect recovery from ungrammaticality (as argued by Lagoet al)IHowever, equivocal results for first-pass regressionsAcknowledgementsThis research was supported by a Global Research Network grant from theKorean Government

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/26329967/cuny2016_agr.pdf

The role of retrieval interference in recovery from ungrammaticality

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer