Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (14)
- Article (11)
- Postprint (5)
Language
- English (30)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (30) (remove)
Keywords
- sentence processing (30) (remove)
A large body of research now supports the presence of both syntactic and lexical predictions in sentence processing. Lexical predictions, in particular, are considered to indicate a deep level of predictive processing that extends past the structural features of a necessary word (e.g. noun), right down to the phonological features of the lexical identity of a specific word (e.g. /kite/; DeLong et al., 2005). However, evidence for lexical predictions typically focuses on predictions in very local environments, such as the adjacent word or words (DeLong et al., 2005; Van Berkum et al., 2005; Wicha et al., 2004). Predictions in such local environments may be indistinguishable from lexical priming, which is transient and uncontrolled, and as such may prime lexical items that are not compatible with the context (e.g. Kukona et al., 2014). Predictive processing has been argued to be a controlled process, with top-down information guiding preactivation of plausible upcoming lexical items (Kuperberg & Jaeger, 2016). One way to distinguish lexical priming from prediction is to demonstrate that preactivated lexical content can be maintained over longer distances.
In this dissertation, separable German particle verbs are used to demonstrate that preactivation of lexical items can be maintained over multi-word distances. A self-paced reading time and an eye tracking experiment provide some support for the idea that particle preactivation triggered by a verb and its context can be observed by holding the sentence context constant and manipulating the predictabilty of the particle. Although evidence of an effect of particle predictability was only seen in eye tracking, this is consistent with previous evidence suggesting that predictive processing facilitates only some eye tracking measures to which the self-paced reading modality may not be sensitive (Staub, 2015; Rayner1998). Interestingly, manipulating the distance between the verb and the particle did not affect reading times, suggesting that the surprisal-predicted faster reading times at long distance may only occur when the additional distance is created by information that adds information about the lexical identity of a distant element (Levy, 2008; Grodner & Gibson, 2005). Furthermore, the results provide support for models proposing that temporal decay is not major influence on word processing (Lewandowsky et al., 2009; Vasishth et al., 2019).
In the third and fourth experiments, event-related potentials were used as a method for detecting specific lexical predictions. In the initial ERP experiment, we found some support for the presence of lexical predictions when the sentence context constrained the number of plausible particles to a single particle. This was suggested by a frontal post-N400 positivity (PNP) that was elicited when a lexical prediction had been violated, but not to violations when more than one particle had been plausible. The results of this study were highly consistent with previous research suggesting that the PNP might be a much sought-after ERP marker of prediction failure (DeLong et al., 2011; DeLong et al., 2014; Van Petten & Luka, 2012; Thornhill & Van Petten, 2012; Kuperberg et al., 2019). However, a second experiment in a larger sample experiment failed to replicate the effect, but did suggest the relationship of the PNP to predictive processing may not yet be fully understood. Evidence for long-distance lexical predictions was inconclusive.
The conclusion drawn from the four experiments is that preactivation of the lexical entries of plausible upcoming particles did occur and was maintained over long distances. The facilitatory effect of this preactivation at the particle site therefore did not appear to be the result of transient lexical priming. However, the question of whether this preactivation can also lead to lexical predictions of a specific particle remains unanswered. Of particular interest to future research on predictive processing is further characterisation of the PNP. Implications for models of sentence processing may be the inclusion of long-distance lexical predictions, or the possibility that preactivation of lexical material can facilitate reading times and ERP amplitude without commitment to a specific lexical item.
While much attention has been devoted to the cognition of aging multilingual individuals, little is known about how age affects their grammatical processing. We assessed subject-verb number-agreement processing in sixty native (L1) and sixty non-native (L2) speakers of German (age: 18-84) using a binary-choice sentence-completion task, along with various individual-differences tests. Our results revealed differential effects of age on L1 and L2 speakers' accuracy and reaction times (RTs). L1 speakers' RTs increased with age, and they became more susceptible to attraction errors. In contrast, L2 speakers' RTs decreased, once age-related slowing was controlled for, and their overall accuracy increased. We interpret this as resulting from increased L2 exposure. Moreover, L2 speakers' accuracy/RT patterns were more strongly affected by cognitive variables (working memory, interference control) than L1 speakers'. Our findings show that as regards bilinguals' grammatical processing ability, aging is associated with both gains (in experience) and losses (in cognitive abilities).
The evaluation of process-oriented cognitive theories through time-ordered observations is crucial for the advancement of cognitive science. The findings presented herein integrate insights from research on eye-movement control and sentence comprehension during reading, addressing challenges in modeling time-ordered data, statistical inference, and interindividual variability. Using kernel density estimation and a pseudo-marginal likelihood for fixation durations and locations, a likelihood implementation of the SWIFT model of eye-movement control during reading (Engbert et al., Psychological Review, 112, 2005, pp. 777–813) is proposed. Within the broader framework of data assimilation, Bayesian parameter inference with adaptive Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques is facilitated for reliable model fitting. Across the different studies, this framework has shown to enable reliable parameter recovery from simulated data and prediction of experimental summary statistics. Despite its complexity, SWIFT can be fitted within a principled Bayesian workflow, capturing interindividual differences and modeling experimental effects on reading across different geometrical alterations of text. Based on these advancements, the integrated dynamical model SEAM is proposed, which combines eye-movement control, a traditionally psychological research area, and post-lexical language processing in the form of cue-based memory retrieval (Lewis & Vasishth, Cognitive Science, 29, 2005, pp. 375–419), typically the purview of psycholinguistics. This proof-of-concept integration marks a significant step forward in natural language comprehension during reading and suggests that the presented methodology can be useful to develop complex cognitive dynamical models that integrate processes at levels of perception, higher cognition, and (oculo-)motor control. These findings collectively advance process-oriented cognitive modeling and highlight the importance of Bayesian inference, individual differences, and interdisciplinary integration for a holistic understanding of reading processes. Implications for theory and methodology, including proposals for model comparison and hierarchical parameter inference, are briefly discussed.
A growing body of experimental syntactic research has revealed substantial variation in the magnitude of island effects, not only across languages but also across different grammatical constructions. Adopting a well-established experimental design, the present study examines island effects in Spanish using a speeded acceptability judgment task. To quantify variation across grammatical constructions, we tested extraction from four different types of structure (subjects, complex noun phrases, adjuncts and interrogative clauses). The results of Bayesian mixed effects modelling showed that the size of island effects varied between constructions, such that there was clear evidence of subject, adjunct and interrogative island effects, but not of complex noun phrase island effects. We also failed to find evidence that island effects were modulated by participants' working memory capacity as measured by an operation span task. To account for our results, we suggest that variability in island effects across constructions may be due to the interaction of syntactic, semantic-pragmatic and processing factors, which may affect island types differentially due to their idiosyncratic properties.
It has been proposed that in online sentence comprehension the dependency between a reflexive pronoun such as himself/herself and its antecedent is resolved using exclusively syntactic constraints. Under this strictly syntactic search account, Principle A of the binding theory which requires that the antecedent c-command the reflexive within the same clause that the reflexive occurs in constrains the parser's search for an antecedent. The parser thus ignores candidate antecedents that might match agreement features of the reflexive (e.g., gender) but are ineligible as potential antecedents because they are in structurally illicit positions. An alternative possibility accords no special status to structural constraints: in addition to using Principle A, the parser also uses non-structural cues such as gender to access the antecedent. According to cue -based retrieval theories of memory (e.g., Lewis and Vasishth, 2005), the use of non-structural cues should result in increased retrieval times and occasional errors when candidates partially match the cues, even if the candidates are in structurally illicit positions. In this paper, we first show how the retrieval processes that underlie the reflexive binding are naturally realized in the Lewis and Vasishth (2005) model. We present the predictions of the model under the assumption that both structural and non-structural cues are used during retrieval, and provide a critical analysis of previous empirical studies that failed to find evidence for the use of non-structural cues, suggesting that these failures may be Type II errors. We use this analysis and the results of further modeling to motivate a new empirical design that we use in an eye tracking study. The results of this study confirm the key predictions of the model concerning the use of non-structural cues, and are inconsistent with the strictly syntactic search account. These results present a challenge for theories advocating the infallibility of the human parser in the case of reflexive resolution, and provide support for the inclusion of agreement features such as gender in the set of retrieval cues.
It has been proposed that in online sentence comprehension the dependency between a reflexive pronoun such as himself/herself and its antecedent is resolved using exclusively syntactic constraints. Under this strictly syntactic search account, Principle A of the binding theory—which requires that the antecedent c-command the reflexive within the same clause that the reflexive occurs in—constrains the parser's search for an antecedent. The parser thus ignores candidate antecedents that might match agreement features of the reflexive (e.g., gender) but are ineligible as potential antecedents because they are in structurally illicit positions. An alternative possibility accords no special status to structural constraints: in addition to using Principle A, the parser also uses non-structural cues such as gender to access the antecedent. According to cue-based retrieval theories of memory (e.g., Lewis and Vasishth, 2005), the use of non-structural cues should result in increased retrieval times and occasional errors when candidates partially match the cues, even if the candidates are in structurally illicit positions. In this paper, we first show how the retrieval processes that underlie the reflexive binding are naturally realized in the Lewis and Vasishth (2005) model. We present the predictions of the model under the assumption that both structural and non-structural cues are used during retrieval, and provide a critical analysis of previous empirical studies that failed to find evidence for the use of non-structural cues, suggesting that these failures may be Type II errors. We use this analysis and the results of further modeling to motivate a new empirical design that we use in an eye tracking study. The results of this study confirm the key predictions of the model concerning the use of non-structural cues, and are inconsistent with the strictly syntactic search account. These results present a challenge for theories advocating the infallibility of the human parser in the case of reflexive resolution, and provide support for the inclusion of agreement features such as gender in the set of retrieval cues.
We report the results from two experiments investigating how referential context information affects native and non-native readers' interpretation of ambiguous relative clauses in sentences such as The journalist interviewed the assistant of the inspector who was looking very serious. The preceding discourse context was manipulated such that it provided two potential referents for either the first (the assistant) or the second (the inspector) of the two noun phrases that could potentially host the relative clause, thus biasing towards either an NP1 or an NP2 modification reading. The results from an offline comprehension task indicate that both native English speakers' and German and Chinese-speaking ESL learners' ultimate interpretation preferences were reliably influenced by the type of referential context. In contrast, in a corresponding self-paced-reading task we found that referential context information modulated only the non-native participants' disambiguation preferences but not the native speakers'. Our results corroborate and extend previous findings suggesting that non-native comprehenders' initial analysis of structurally ambiguous input is strongly influenced by biasing discourse information.
We report the results from two experiments investigating how referential context information affects native and non-native readers’ interpretation of ambiguous relative clauses in sentences such as The journalist interviewed the assistant of the inspector who was looking very serious. The preceding discourse context was manipulated such that it provided two potential referents for either the first (the assistant) or the second (the inspector) of the two noun phrases that could potentially host the relative clause, thus biasing towards either an NP1 or an NP2 modification reading. The results from an offline comprehension task indicate that both native English speakers’ and German and Chinese-speaking ESL learners’ ultimate interpretation preferences were reliably influenced by the type of referential context. In contrast, in a corresponding self-paced-reading task we found that referential context information modulated only the non-native participants’ disambiguation preferences but not the native speakers’. Our results corroborate and extend previous findings suggesting that non-native comprehenders’ initial analysis of structurally ambiguous input is strongly influenced by biasing discourse information.
SOPARSE predicts so-called local coherence effects: locally plausible but globally impossible parses of substrings can exert a distracting influence during sentence processing. Additionally, it predicts digging-in effects: the longer the parser stays committed to a particular analysis, the harder it becomes to inhibit that analysis. We investigated the interaction of these two predictions using German sentences. Results from a self-paced reading study show that the processing difficulty caused by a local coherence can be reduced by first allowing the globally correct parse to become entrenched, which supports SOPARSE’s assumptions.