1. TOWARDS A MODULAR APPROACH TO ANAPHORIC PROCESSING: semantic operations precede discourse operations Arnout Koornneef

2. HYPOTHESES Variable binding is cheaper than coreference In ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference

3. SEMANTICS vs. DISCOURSE previous research Piñango, Burkhardt, Brun and Avrutin (2001) Dual task experiment: participants listened to critical sentences and performed lexical decision task Rationale: tasks tap into same resources SEMANTICS vs. DISCOURSE previous research

4. STIMULI variable binding Everyone i hopes that the tenants will pay him i the rent before… coreference The landlord i hopes that the tenants will pay him i the rent before… STIMULI

5. RESULTS No difference in control condition Longer RT’s in coreference condition in experimental condition Variable binding is cheaper than coreference RESULTS

6. DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION coreference condition The landlord i hopes that the tenants will pay him i the rent before… the landlord c-command him: Variable binding and coreference are both possible Longer RT’s because of interference between two available processes?

7. EYE-TRACKING EXPERIMENT: semantics vs. discourse EYE-TRACKING EXPERIMENT: semantics vs. discourse

8. OBJECTIVES Support for hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Additional support for hypothesis 1: variable binding is cheaper than coreference OBJECTIVES

9. HYPOTHESIS 2 In an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference HYPOTHESIS 2

10. EXPERIMENTAL ITEMS variable binding context A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men, among them the very old man Paul, could barely cope. Every working man who just like Paul was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. coreference context A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today the very old man Paul could barely cope. Every working man who knew that Paul was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. EXPERIMENTAL ITEMS

11. PREDICTIONS variable binding context  he is bound by every working man  context supports dependency  no re-analysis coreference context  he is bound by every working man  context does not support dependency  re-analysis  he refers to Paul Longer reading times (regression path or second-pass durations) in coreference context PREDICTIONS

12. EYE-TRACKING MEASURES First-pass duration: time spent in a region before moving on or looking back Regression path duration: time from first entering a region until moving the eyes beyond that region, includes regression time Second-pass duration: duration of re-fixations Total fixation duration: the sum of all fixations in a region EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

13. EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENT MEASURES The clown thinks that he is… 12 3 45 7 Reading Times for word 3 (thinks) First-pass duration = 3 + 4 Regression Path duration = 3 + 4 + 5 Second-pass duration = 6 Total duration = 3 + 4 + 6 6 EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

14. FIRST-PASS DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… FIRST-PASS DURATION

15. SECOND-PASS DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

16. TOTAL FIXATION DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… TOTAL FIXATION DURATION

17. RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 2 Significant differences in first-pass, second-pass and total fixation duration: longer reading times in coreference context condition RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 2

18. CONCLUSION Results support hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Consistent with the more general claim: semantics before discourse CONCLUSION

19. PROBLEMS Are the ambiguous pronouns interpreted as we intended? Is the context before critical pronoun strong enough to bias the interpretation? PROBLEMS

20. TWO WEB-BASED CONTROL EXPERIMENTS 1)Ask participants how they interpret the pronoun 2)Ask participants to finish the story TWO WEB-BASED CONTROL EXPERIMENTS

21. CONTROL EXPERIMENT 1 In variable binding context quantified referent is chosen 88.2% of the time In coreference context proper name is chosen 89.5% of the time The pronouns were interpreted as we intended CONTROL EXPERIMENT 1

22. CONTROL EXPERIMENT 2 Participants finish a story and indicate how the pronoun should be interpreted A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men, among them the very old man Paul, could barely cope. Every working man who just like Paul was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he.. CONTROL EXPERIMENT 2

23. In variable binding context story continues about quantified referent 89.1% of the time In coreference context story continues about proper name 78.5% of the time Pronoun in coreference condition initially more ambiguous CONTROL EXPERIMENT 2

24. SOLUTION Use subset of items with no difference between two conditions 24 of original 36 items Variable binding 85.4% and coreference 89.5% SOLUTION

25. SECOND-PASS DURATION co-ref: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

26. CONCLUSION Results still support hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Consistent with the more general claim: semantics before discourse Consistent with a modular view towards anaphoric processing CONCLUSION

27. HYPOTHESIS 1: EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS variable binding A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men could barely cope. Every working man who was running out of energy, thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. coreference A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today the very old man Paul could barely cope. Paul was running out of energy. It was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. HYPOTHESIS 1 experimental conditions

28. HYPOTHESIS 1: CONTROL CONDITIONS similar to variable binding condition A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today a lot of working men could barely cope. All the working men who were running out of energy, thought it was very nice that they could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. similar to coreference condition A working day in the factory is always very tough. Especially today the very old man Paul could barely cope. Paul who was running out of energy thought it was very nice that he could go home early this afternoon. After a hot shower things would probably look better. HYPOTHESIS 1 control conditions

29. PREDICTIONS Longer reading times in coreference condition than variable binding condition If there is interference between two processes: longer reading times in two control conditions compared to experimental conditions PREDICTIONS

30. EYE-TRACKING MEASURES First-pass duration: time spent in a region before moving on or looking back Regression path duration: time from first entering a region until moving the eyes beyond that region, includes regression time Second-pass duration: duration of re-fixations Total fixation duration: the sum of all fixations in a region EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

31. EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENT MEASURES The clown thinks that he is… 12 3 45 7 Reading Times for word 3 (thinks) First-pass duration = 3 + 4 Regression Path duration = 3 + 4 + 5 Second-pass duration = 6 Total duration = 3 + 4 + 6 6 EYE-TRACKING MEASURES

32. REGIONS OF ANALYSIS 1initial region variable binding: Every working man who was running out of energy, 1initial region coreference: Paul was running out of energy. 2pre-critical region variable binding: thought it was very nice 2pre-critical region coreference: It was very nice 3critical region: that he 4spill-over region: could go 5pre-final region: home early 6final region: this afternoon. REGIONS OF ANALYSIS

33. SECOND-PASS DURATION co-ref: Paul… It was… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

34. co-ref: Paul… It was… that he could go home early this… binding: Every… thought it… that he could go home early this… SECOND-PASS DURATION

35. RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 1: No significant differences in first-pass, regression path and total fixation duration Significant difference in second-pass duration in first spill over region: longer reading times in variable binding condition Only variable binding condition differed from control conditions RESULTS HYPOTHESIS 1

36. CONCLUSION No support for hypothesis 1: variable binding is cheaper than coreference No interference between variable binding and coreference Why the difference between Piñango et al. and these results? CONCLUSION

37. GENERAL DISCUSSION

38. GENERAL DISCUSSION HYPOTHESIS 1 No direct support for hypothesis 1: variable binding is cheaper than coreference GENERAL DISCUSSION hypothesis 1

39. FOLLOWING BURKHARDT Everyone i thinks that he i is not funny. Every clown i thinks that he i is not funny. The clown i thinks that he i is not funny. EXPLANATION?

40. FOLLOWING BURKHARDT Everyone i thinks that he i is not funny. quantified non-referential Every clown i thinks that he i is not funny. quantified referential The clown i thinks that he i is not funny. referential EXPLANATION?

41. PROCESSING COSTS 1)quantified non-referential (everyone) is purely variable binding 2)referential (the clown) is coreference 3)quantified referential (every clown) is coreference associated with additional processing costs because the information about the set, provided by the restrictor clown, has to be transferred to the pronoun (e.g., Burkhardt, 2004) EXPLANATION?

42. IMPLICATION We used quantified referential dependencies in our variable binding condition. This can explain why variable binding is more difficult than coreference in our stimuli Similar results by Carminati, Frazier & Rayner (2002) IMPLICATION

43. GENERAL DISCUSSION HYPOTHESIS 2 Support for hypothesis 2: in an ambiguous situation variable binding has precedence over coreference Consistent with the more general claim: semantics before discourse Consistent with a modular view towards anaphoric processing The results for hypothesis 1 require further research GENERAL DISCUSSION hypothesis 2

44. That’s all for today