Over-arching research interest
• Impact of optionality in natural human language
Coreference and focus in
human sentence processing
• Why? Ubiquitous and linguistically universal
• Applies at two key levels:
Wind Cowles
Language and Cognition Lab
Department of Linguistics
• Multiple syntactic structures possible for same information
• Multiple referential forms possible for same referent
At the heart of structural optionality:
Information structure
• Lambrecht (1999) - Independent component within sentence grammar
Syntax
Information Structure
Semantics
• Function that mediates between the form of utterances and the current
mental states of interlocutors
Formal instantiations of information structure
• Information structure is formally realized via:
• Prosody
• Specialized (morpho-)syntactic markers
• Ordering and positioning of syntactic constituents
• Particular grammatical constructions
• (Alternative, compatible approach: Jackendoff (2002) - Interface between
components within the grammar)
• Certain choices among lexical options
Major categories: Topic and Focus
Major categories: Topic and Focus
What did the player do?
What happened?
The player dropped the ball.
The player dropped the ball.
Topic
Focus
Aboutness condition
File card metaphor
Informative part
“pragmatically non-recoverable”
Major categories: Topic and Focus
Topic
Aboutness condition
File card metaphor
Topic
Prosody
The player dropped the ball.
Aboutness condition
File card metaphor
Informative part
“pragmatically non-recoverable”
Formal instantiations (generalized)
What did the player drop?
Topic
Focus
Focus
Informative part
“pragmatically non-recoverable”
Specialized
(morpho-)syntactic
markers
Focus
reduced pitch accents prominent pitch accents
e.g. -wa in Japanese
e.g. only in English
Ordering/positioning of
syntactic constituents
early
late
Particular grammatical
constructions
fronting
clefts
Certain choices among
lexical options
pronouns
fuller forms of
reference
Questions for Human Coreference Processing
Different types of anaphoric expressions
• How is the antecedent referent determined?
in focus
activated
familiar
it
this/that
this N
that N
• What are the influential factors?
• Contextual, antecedent features, anaphor features
uniquely
type
referential
identifiable
identifiable
the N
(indef) this
N
• Gundel et al. (1993)
• What is the time course of this process?
Interactions with prominent/focused antecedents
A boxer and a trainer entered the weight room.
The boxer talked to the trainer.
Categorical-Def The athlete ...
Categorical-Dem That athlete ...
Repeated The boxer ...
Interactions with prominent/focused antecedents
A boxer and a trainer entered the weight room.
The boxer talked to the trainer.
Pronominal He ...
Pronominal He ...
... was preparing for the
upcoming competition.
aN
Categorical-Def The athlete ...
Categorical-Dem That athlete ...
Repeated The boxer ...
Prominence “preference”
Pronominal co-reference to prominent
antecedents leads to faster reading
times - even if they are unmentioned.
(e.g. Cornish, Garnham, Cowles,
Fossard & Andre, 2005)
Interactions with prominent/focused antecedents
A boxer and a trainer entered the weight room.
The boxer talked to the trainer.
Pronominal He ...
Categorical-Def The athlete ...
Categorical-Dem That athlete ...
Repeated The boxer ...
Inverse Semantic
Distance Effects
Categorical co-reference to atypical
exemplars in prominent syntactic
positions leads to faster reading times
(e.g. Almor, 1999; Cowles & Garnham,
2005)
Interactions with prominent/focused antecedents
A boxer and a runner entered the weight room.
The boxer talked to the runner.
Interactions with prominent/focused antecedents
A boxer and a runner entered the weight room.
The boxer talked to the runner.
Pronominal He ...
Categorical-Def The athlete ...
Categorical-Dem That athlete ...
Repeated The boxer ...
Topic maintenance/Topic shift
Categorical demonstrative forms serve
to shift attention and thus seek
antecedents than pronouns (Fossard,
Garnham & Cowles, 2012)
Typicality Effects
1. The professor and her student arranged the transportation for their field trip.
2. She rented a car/boat for the second stage of the trip.
3. The vehicle was necessary for getting to the exploration site.
e.g. Garrod & Sanford (1977)
Pronominal He ...
Categorical-Def The athlete ...
Categorical-Dem That athlete ...
Repeated The boxer ...
Repeated Name Penalty
Repeated co-reference to prominent
antecedents leads to slower reading
times (e.g. Gordon, Grosz & Gilliom,
1993; Gordon et al. 1999; Almor, 1999)
but not always (Cowles & Dawidzuik, in
press)
Inverse Typicality Effects
Beyond Typicality and Clefts
1. The professor and her student arranged the transportation for their field trip.
2a. It was the student that rented the car/boat.
2b. What the student rented was the car/boat.
3. The vehicle was necessary for getting to the exploration site.
• Cowles & Garnham (2005)
Almor (1999)
• Two Experiments Tested Conceptual and Inverse Conceptual Distance Effects
• Exp 1: Clefts
• Exp 2: No Clefts
• 28 native English participants, 24 items
Exp 1: Design & Sample Materials
Most Specific
Least Specific
Methods - Procedure
Distant Antecedent
Close Antecedent
Anaphor
Focus Antecedent Setup:
What the mongoose stood up to was the
Non-focus Antecedent Setup:
It was the mongoose that stood up to the
Target sentence:
The reptile hissed and got ready to strike.
cobra.
snake.
cobra.
snake.
• Self-paced reading
hissed and
gotstood
readyup
toto
strike.
READY
ItThe
wasreptile
the mongoose
that
the cobra.
Results - Reading time at the anaphor
Results - Residual time at the predicate
The reptile hissed and got ready to strike.
800
Near
(snake)
700
Distant
(cobra)
Distant
(cobra)
200
600
500
Near
(snake)
300
561
584
574
542
400
300
Residual Times
Reading Time for Subject NP (msec)
The reptile hissed and got ready to strike.
400
100
145
0
-23
23
-139
-100
200
-200
100
-300
-400
0
Non-Focus
Non-Focus
Focus
• 28 native English participants, 24 items
Experiment 2: Sample Materials
Least Specific
• 28 native English participants, 24 items
Results - Reading time at the anaphor
The reptile hissed and got ready to strike.
Distant Antecedent
Close Antecedent
Anaphor
Focus Antecedent Setup:
The snake/cobra frightened the hunter.
Non-focus Antecedent Setup:
The hunter was frightened by the snake/cobra
Target sentence:
The reptile looked ready to strike at once if threatened.
800
Near
(snake)
700
Reading Time for Subject NP (msec)
Most Specific
Focus
Distant
(cobra)
600
619
623
597
576
500
400
300
200
100
0
Non-Focus
Focus
Results - Residual time at the predicate
Beyond Typicality and Clefts
The reptile hissed and got ready to strike.
400
Near
(snake)
300
Reading Time for Subject NP (msec)
• Inverse semantic distance effects are not limited to clefts or specific to
typicality
Distant
(cobra)
• What does this mean?
200
• Janus (Garnham and Cowles, 2008)
100
0
-24
19
16
-6
• Anaphoric processing has two aspects:
-100
• Antecedent identification
-200
-300
-400
Non-Focus
Focus
• Discourse structuring
(cf. Marlsen-Wilson et al., 1982; Vonk, Hustinx & Simons, 1992)