PROCESSING AND INTERPRETATION OF SENTENCES WITH REFERENTIAL AMBIGUITY: SPECIAL FEATURES
Keywords:
referential ambiguity, pronoun interpretation, subject preference, first mention preference, eye-tracking.Abstract
Referential ambiguity appears when two or more referents pretend to be chosen as an antecedent for a pronoun. The aim of the present study was to investigate the special features of referentially ambiguous sentences processing and to reveal the main factors that influence ambiguous pronouns interpretation. The results of an eye-tracking experiment showed the ambiguity advantage effect, which is expressed in shorter processing time for ambiguous sentences as compared to unambiguous ones. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that pronoun interpretation is sensitive to syntactic roles of referents, although it operates as part of complex multifactorial analysis. The robust primacy effect in sentence processing was found: first-mentioned participants form the foundation for sentence-level representations. However, this effect does not provide any advantage to the first referent in pronoun interpretationReferences
Деликишкина Е. А., Фёдорова О. В. Влияние фактора синтаксической роли антецедента на разрешение референциальной неоднозначности в русском языке // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: по материалам ежегодной конференции «Диалог». М.: РГГУ, 2012. Т. 11. C. 129–137.
Касевич В. Б. Труды по языкознанию: в 2 т. / под ред. Ю.А. Клейнера. СПб.: Филол. фак-т С.-Петерб. ун-та, 2006. Т. 1. 664 с.
Слюсарь Н. А. На стыке теорий: Грамматика и информационная структура в русском и других языках. Изд. 2-е. М.: Кн. дом «ЛИБРОКОМ», 2012. 416 с.
Федорова О. В. Экспериментальный анализ дискурса. М.: Языки слав. культуры, 2014. 512 с.
Федорова О. В. Методика регистрации движений глаз «Визуальный мир»: шанс для сближения психолингвистических традиций // Вопросы языкознания. 2008. № 3. С. 98–120.
Черниговская Т.В., Прокопеня В.К. Интерпретация контекста как характеристика нелинейности структуры ментальной грамматики: экспериментальное исследование референции // Труды четвертой всеросс. конф. «Нелинейная динамика в когнитивных исследованиях». Н. Новгород: ИПФ РАН, 2015. С. 266–269.
Clifton C., Staub A., Rayner K. Eye movements in reading words and sentences // R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (еds.) Eye movements: A window on mind and brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. P. 342–371.
Crawley R. A., Stevenson R. J., Kleinman D. The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1990. 19 (4). P. 245–264.
Fodor J. D. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading / M. Hirotani // Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32, GSLA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2002. P. 112–132.
Frederiksen J. Understanding anaphora: Rules used by readers in assigning // Discourse Processes. 1981. (4). P. 323–347.
Garnham, A. Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press, 2001. 180 p.
Gernsbacher M. A. Surface information loss in comprehension // Cognitive Psychology. 1985. 17. P. 324–363.
Gernsbacher M. A., Hargreaves D. J. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention // Journal of Memory and Language. 1988. 27. P. 699–717.
Gernsbacher M. A., Hargreaves D. J., Beeman M. Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency // Journal of Memory and Language. 1989. 28. P. 735–755.
Grosz B. J., Joshi A., Weinstein S. Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse // Computational Linguistics. 1995. 21. P. 203–226.
Järvikivi J., van Gompel R., Hyönä J., Bertram R. Ambiguous pronoun resolution: contrasting the first mention and subject preference accounts // Psychological Science. 2005. Vol. 16. P. 260–264.
Kehler A., Kertz H., Rohde H., Elman J. Coherence and Coreference Revisited // Journal of Semantics. 2008. 25. P. 1–44.
Poesio M., Stevenson R., Eugenio B. D., Hitzeman J. Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations // Computational Linguistics. 2004. 30. P. 309–363.
Rohde H., Kehler A. Grammatical and Information-Structural Influences on Pronoun Production // Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2014. 29(8). P. 912–927.
Staub A., Rayner K. Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes // M.G. Gaskell (еd.). The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2007. P. 327–341.
Swets B., Desmet T., Clifton Ch., Ferreira F. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading // Memory & Cognition. 2008. 36 (1). P. 201–216.
Traxler M. J., Pickering M. J., Clifton C. Jr. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution // Journal of Memory & Language. 1998. 39. P. 558–592.
van Gompel R. P. G., Pickering M. J., Pearson J., Liversedge S. P. Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution // Journal of Memory & Language. 2005. 52. P. 284–307.
van Gompel R. P. G., Pickering M. J., Traxler M. J. Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraintbased and two-stage models // Journal of Memory & Language. 2001. 45. P. 225–258.
References
Chernigovskaja T. V., Prokopenya V. K. Interpretatsija konteksta kak kharakteristika nelinejnosti struktury mental`noj grammatiki: eksperimental`noe issledovanie referentsii [Context interpretation as a characteristics of the nonlinear structure of mental grammar: experimental study of reference]. Trudy chetvertoj vserossijskoj konferentsii “Nelinejnaja dinamika v kognitivnykh issledovanijakh” [Proceedings of the 4th All-Russian conference “Nonlinear dynamics in cognitive studies”]. Nizhny Novgorod: Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ., 2015. P. 266–269.
Clifton C., Staub A., Rayner K. Eye movements in reading words and sentences // In: R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.) Eye movements: A window on mind and brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. P. 342–371.
Crawley R. A., Stevenson R. J., Kleinman D. The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (19 (4)), 1990. P. 245–264.
Delikishkina E. A., Fedorova O. V. Vlijanije faktora sintaksicheskoj roli antetsedenta na razreshenije referentsial`noj neodnoznachnosti v russkom jazyke [The influence of the syntactic role of the antecedent on an ambiguous pronoun resolution in the Russian language]. Kompjuternaja lingvistika i intellektual`nye tekhnologii. Po materjalam ezhegodnoj konferentsii Dialog [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. Proceedings of the annual conference Dialogue]. Moscow: RSUH Publ., 2012. Vol. 11. P. 120–137.
Fedorova O.V. Eksperimental`nyj analiz diskursa [Experimental analysis of discourse]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 2014. 512 p.
Fedorova O. V. Metodika registratsii dvizhenij glaz “Vizual’nyj mir”: shans dlja sblizhenija psikholingvisticheskikh traditsij [Eye-tracking methodology “Visual World”: chance to bridge the gap between psycholinguistic traditions]. Voprosy jazykoznanija [Issues of linguistics]. 2008. № 3. P. 98–120.
Fodor J.D. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. / M. Hirotani // Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32, GSLA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2002. P. 112–132.
Frederiksen J. Understanding anaphora: Rules used by readers in assigning // Discourse Processes (4), 1981. P. 323–347.
Garnham A. Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora / Hove: Psychology Press, 2001. 180 p.
Gernsbacher M. A. Surface information loss in comprehension // Cognitive Psychology, 17, 1985. P. 324–363.
Gernsbacher M. A., Hargreaves D. J. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention // Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 1988. P. 699–717.
Gernsbacher M. A., Hargreaves D. J., Beeman M. Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency // Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1989. P. 735–755.
Gompel R. P. G. van, Pickering M. J., Pearson J., Liversedge S. P. Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution // Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 2005. P. 284–307.
Gompel R. P. G. van, Pickering M. J., Traxler M.J. Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models // Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 2001. P. 225–258.
Grosz B. J., Joshi A., Weinstein S. Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse // Computational Linguistics 21, 1995. P. 203–226.
Järvikivi J., Gompel R. van, Hyönä J., Bertram R. Ambiguous pronoun resolution: contrasting the first mention and subject preference accounts // Psychological Science. Vol. 16, 2005. P. 260–264.
Kasevich V.B. Trudy po jazykoznaniju: v 2 t. [Works on linguistics: in 2 vols.] / ed. by Ju. A. Klejner. St. Petersburg: Philological faculty of St. Petersburg State University Publ., 2006. Vol. 1. 664 p.
Kehler A., Kertz H., Rohde H., Elman J. Coherence and Coreference Revisited. Journal of Semantics 25, 2008. P. 1–44.
Poesio M., Stevenson R., Eugenio B. D., Hitzeman J. Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations // Computational Linguistics, 30, 2004. P. 309–363.
Rohde H., Kehler A. Grammatical and Information-Structural Influences on Pronoun Production // Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(8), 2014. P. 912–927.
Slioussar N. Na styke teorij: grammatika i informatsionnaja struktura v russkom i drugikh jazykakh [At the intersection of theories: grammar and information structure in the Russian and other languages]. 2nd edition. Moscow: Knizhnyj dom “LIBROKOM” Publ., 2012. 416 p.
Staub A., Rayner K. Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes // In: M.G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. P. 327–341.
Swets B., Desmet T., Clifton Ch., Ferreira F. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading // Memory & Cognition, 36 (1), 2008. P. 201–216.
Traxler M. J., Pickering M. J., Clifton C. Jr. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution // Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 1998. P. 558–592.
