TY  - JOUR
A1  - Schoknecht, Pia
A1  - Roehm, Dietmar
A1  - Schlesewsky, Matthias
A1  - Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina
T1  - The interaction of predictive processing and similarity-based retrieval interference
BT  - an ERP study
JF  - Language, cognition and neuroscience
N2  - Language processing requires memory retrieval to integrate current input with previous context and making predictions about upcoming input. We propose that prediction and retrieval are two sides of the same coin, i.e. functionally the same, as they both activate memory representations. Under this assumption, memory retrieval and prediction should interact: Retrieval interference can only occur at a word that triggers retrieval and a fully predicted word would not do that. The present study investigated the proposed interaction with event-related potentials (ERPs) during the processing of sentence pairs in German. Predictability was measured via cloze probability. Memory retrieval was manipulated via the position of a distractor inducing proactive or retroactive similarity-based interference. Linear mixed model analyses provided evidence for the hypothesised interaction in a broadly distributed negativity, which we discuss in relation to the interference ERP literature. Our finding supports the proposal that memory retrieval and prediction are functionally the same.
KW  - Language
KW  - memory retrieval
KW  - interference
KW  - prediction
KW  - predictive
KW  - processing
KW  - interaction
KW  - ERP
Y1  - 2022
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2026421
SN  - 2327-3798
SN  - 2327-3801
VL  - 37
IS  - 7
SP  - 883
EP  - 901
PB  - Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
CY  - Abingdon
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Puebla Antunes, Cecilia
A1  - Felser, Claudia
T1  - Discourse Prominence and Antecedent MisRetrieval during Native and Non-Native Pronoun Resolution
JF  - Discours : revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique
N2  - Previous studies on non-native (L2) anaphor resolution suggest that L2 comprehenders are guided more strongly by discourse-level cues compared to native (L1) comprehenders. Here we examine whether and how a grammatically inappropriate antecedent’s discourse status affects the likelihood of it being considered during L1 and L2 pronoun resolution. We used an interference paradigm to examine how the extrasentential discourse impacts the resolution of German object pronouns. In an eye-tracking-during-reading experiment we examined whether an elaborated local antecedent ruled out by binding Condition B would be mis-retrieved during pronoun resolution, and whether initially introducing this antecedent as the discourse topic would affect the chances of it being mis-retrieved. While both participant groups rejected the inappropriate antecedent in an offline questionnaire irrespective of its discourse prominence, their real-time processing patterns differed. L1 speakers initially mis-retrieved the inappropriate antecedent regardless of its contextual prominence. L1 Russian/L2 German speakers, in contrast, were affected by the antecedent’s discourse status, considering it only when it was discourse-new but not when it had previously been introduced as the discourse topic. Our findings show that L2 comprehenders are highly sensitive to discourse dynamics such as topic shifts, supporting the claim that discourse-level cues are more strongly weighted during L2 compared to L1 processing.
KW  - pronoun resolution
KW  - non-native sentence processing
KW  - discourse
KW  - prominence
KW  - interference
KW  - German
KW  - eye-movement monitoring
Y1  - 2022
U6  - https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.11720
SN  - 1963-1723
IS  - 29
PB  - Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Maion Recherche
CY  - Paris
ER  -