1 / 12

Results of Eyetracking & Self-Paced Moving Window Studies

DO-Bias Verbs : The referees warned the spectators would probably get too rowdy. The referees warned the game would probably go into overtime. read slowly. Clause-Bias Verbs : The bus driver worried the passengers were starting to get annoyed.

omana
Download Presentation

Results of Eyetracking & Self-Paced Moving Window Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DO-Bias Verbs: The referees warned the spectatorswould probably get too rowdy. The referees warned the gamewould probably go into overtime. read slowly Clause-Bias Verbs: The bus driver worried the passengerswere starting to get annoyed. The bus driver worried the tireswere starting to go flat. read slowly EQ-Bias Verbs: The senior senator regretted the decisionhad ever been made public. The senior senator regretted the reporterhad ever seen the report. Results of Eyetracking & Self-Paced Moving Window Studies

  2. Plausibility * Plausibility NS Plausibility NS Plausibility * Plausibility NS Plausibility NS Ambiguity EffectsFirst-Pass Times in Eyetracking At Disambiguating Verb At Ambiguous NP

  3. Plausibility * Plausibility * Plausibility NS Ambiguity EffectsTotal Times in Eyetracking At Ambiguous NP At Disambiguating Verb

  4. Plausibility * Plausibility * Plausibility NS Plausibility NS Plausibility NS Plausibility NS Ambiguity EffectsSelf-paced Moving Window Times At Ambiguous NP At Disambiguating Verb Notice direction of Plaus Effects at NP !!!

  5. Verbs Rule! But Why? • In these sentences, verb comes before relevant noun, so gets a head start? • BUT, Trueswell (1995) found same for Reduced Relatives, where noun comes first (e.g., “evidence examined”) • Verb Bias may be retrieved as part of recognizing verb • While plausibility must be computed on-line for particular verb-noun combinations, which probably takes longer? • Verbs determine how everything else in sentence combines, so weighted most heavily? • In English, verbs appear early in sentences, so we learn to rely heavily on the predictive info they provide? • So what do speakers of verb-final languages rely on instead? Plausibility of possible noun combinations???

  6. Correlations between Ambiguity Effect Size at Disambiguation & Verb Bias Strength Across All Verbs First-Pass Times Moving Window Times

  7. Correlational Evidence Specifically for Parallel Parsing When Verb Bias & Plausibility provided conflicting cues Clause-Bias Verb + Plausible-as-DO NP As DO-Bias INcreases, difficulty INcreases r = +.56 (First Pass) +.47 (Moving Window) DO-Bias Verb + Implausible-as-DO NP As Clause-Bias INcreases, difficulty DEcreases r = -.58 (First Pass) -.59 (Moving Window) So, when Plausibility cue conflicts w/ Verb Bias - Other structure is considered - To the extent the V is used in that other structure

  8. Could ALL Non-Syntactic Influence be on Reanalysis, not Initial Parse??? • Frazier (1995) • “It may be significant that garden paths have never been convincingly demonstrated in the processing of analysis A (the structurally simplest one)… In such cases, if analysis A ultimately proves to be correct, perceivers should show evidence of having been garden-pathed by a syntactically more complex analysis even though the syntactically simpler analysis is correct.” • So, need to demonstrate early influence of non-syntactic factors even when GP Model predicts no reanalysis • GP Model says simplest alternative tried first • If correct, no reason to try others, so no reanalysis • And thus no reason for non-syntactic factors to influence parse

  9. Interactive models do predict “garden-pathing” in • simpler structures, if lexical &/or contextual cues • push toward more complex possible structure • But they predict it should be smaller than in more • complex structures because … • - Structural (& conceptual) simplicity not ignored in such models • - Just not the only important factor in initial interpretation • - Simpler sentences are generally more common • - So other cues have to fight structural frequency effects

  10. Wilson & Garnsey (2006) Put both kinds of verbs in both kinds of structures • Clause-Bias Verb: The ticket agent admitted the mistake might not have been caught. The ticket agent admitted the mistake because she had been caught. • DO-Bias Verb: The CIA director confirmed the rumor could mean a security breach. The CIA director confirmed the rumor when he testified before Congress. ALL post-verb NPs plausible as DOs • Since DO-sentence with implausible-as-DO NP is implausible!

  11. * * * NS * * * * NS Length-Corrected Residual RT at Disambiguation

  12. Convinced??? • According to GP Model, in DO-Structure Sentence • Should never be any reason to reanalyze • So no need to go back & reread • So why do people reread earlier words more in DO-Structure Sentence w/ Clause-Bias Verb? • Because Verb Bias does influence initial interpretation, not just reanalysis? • Why do people • Slow down & stay put in Clause-Structure Sentences w/ DO-Bias Verbs? • But reread earlier words instead in DO-Structure Sentences w/ Clause-Bias Verbs?

More Related