Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (12)
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Dissertation (10)
- Monographie/Sammelband (2)
Schlagworte
- Psycholinguistik (12) (entfernen)
Institut
This dissertation explores whether the processing of ellipsis is affected by changes in the complexity of the antecedent, either due to added linguistic material or to the presence of a temporary ambiguity. Murphy (1985) hypothesized that ellipsis is resolved via a string copying procedure when the antecedent is within the same sentence, and that copying longer strings takes more time. Such an account also implies that the antecedent is copied without its structure, which in turn implies that recomputing its syntax and semantics may be necessary at the ellipsis gap. Alternatively, several accounts predict null effects of antecedent complexity, as well as no reparsing. These either involve a structure copying mechanism that is cost-free and whose finishing time is thus independent of the form of the antecedent (Frazier & Clifton, 2001), treat ellipsis as a pointer into content-addressable memory with direct access (Martin & McElree, 2008, 2009), or assume that one structure is ‘shared’ between antecedent and gap (Frazier & Clifton, 2005).
In a self-paced reading study on German sluicing, temporarily ambiguous garden-path clauses were used as antecedents, but no evidence of reparsing in the form of a slowdown at the ellipsis site was found. Instead, results suggest that antecedents which had been reanalyzed from an initially incorrect structure were easier to retrieve at the gap. This finding that can be explained within the framework of cue-based retrieval parsing (Lewis & Vasishth, 2005), where additional syntactic operations on a structure yield memory reactivation effects.
Two further self-paced reading studies on German bare argument ellipsis and English verb phrase ellipsis investigated if adding linguistic content to the antecedent would increase processing times for the ellipsis, and whether insufficiently demanding comprehension tasks may have been responsible for earlier null results (Frazier & Clifton, 2000; Martin & McElree, 2008). It has also been suggested that increased antecedent complexity should shorten rather than lengthen retrieval times by providing more unique memory features (Hofmeister, 2011). Both experiments failed to yield reliable evidence that antecedent complexity affects ellipsis processing times in either direction, irrespectively of task demands.
Finally, two eye-tracking studies probed more deeply into the proposed reactivation-induced speedup found in the first experiment. The first study used three different kinds of French garden-path sentences as antecedents, with two of them failing to yield evidence for reactivation. Moreover, the third sentence type showed evidence suggesting that having failed to assign a structure to the antecedent leads to a slowdown at the ellipsis site, as well as regressions towards the ambiguous part of the sentence. The second eye-tracking study used the same materials as the initial self-paced reading study on German, with results showing a pattern similar to the one originally observed, with some notable differences.
Overall, the experimental results are compatible with the view that adding linguistic material to the antecedent has no or very little effect on the ease with which ellipsis is resolved, which is consistent with the predictions of cost-free copying, pointer-based approaches and structure sharing. Additionally, effects of the antecedent’s parsing history on ellipsis processing may be due to reactivation, the availability of multiple representations in memory, or complete failure to retrieve a matching target.
The aim of this dissertation was to conduct a larger-scale cross-linguistic empirical investigation of similarity-based interference effects in sentence comprehension.
Interference studies can offer valuable insights into the mechanisms that are involved in long-distance dependency completion.
Many studies have investigated similarity-based interference effects, showing that syntactic and semantic information are employed during long-distance dependency formation (e.g., Arnett & Wagers, 2017; Cunnings & Sturt, 2018; Van Dyke, 2007, Van Dyke & Lewis, 2003; Van Dyke & McElree, 2011). Nevertheless, there are some important open questions in the interference literature that are critical to our understanding of the constraints involved in dependency resolution.
The first research question concerns the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in online sentence comprehension. Only few interference studies have investigated this question, and, to date, there is not enough data to draw conclusions with regard to their time course (Van Dyke, 2007; Van Dyke & McElree, 2011).
Our first cross-linguistic study explores the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in two eye-tracking reading experiments that implement the study design used in Van Dyke (2007). The first experiment tests English sentences. The second, larger-sample experiment investigates the two interference types in German.
Overall, the data suggest that syntactic and semantic interference can arise simultaneously during retrieval.
The second research question concerns a special case of semantic interference: We investigate whether cue-based retrieval interference can be caused by semantically similar items which are not embedded in a syntactic structure.
This second interference study builds on a landmark study by Van Dyke & McElree (2006). The study design used in their study is unique in that it is able to pin down the source of interference as a consequence of cue overload during retrieval, when semantic retrieval cues do not uniquely match the retrieval target. Unlike most other interference studies, this design is able to rule out encoding interference as an alternative explanation. Encoding accounts postulate that it is not cue overload at the retrieval site but the erroneous encoding of similar linguistic items in memory that leads to interference (Lewandowsky et al., 2008; Oberauer & Kliegl, 2006). While Van Dyke & McElree (2006) reported cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors, the evidence for this effect was weak. A subsequent study did not show interference of this type (Van Dyke et al., 2014). Given these inconclusive findings, further research is necessary to investigate semantic cue-based retrieval interference.
The second study in this dissertation provides a larger-scale cross-linguistic investigation of cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external items. Three larger-sample eye-tracking studies in English, German, and Russian tested cue-based interference in the online processing of filler-gap dependencies. This study further extends the previous research by investigating interference in each language under varying task demands (Logačev & Vasishth, 2016; Swets et al., 2008).
Overall, we see some very modest support for proactive cue-based retrieval interference in English. Unexpectedly, this was observed only under a low task demand. In German and Russian, there is some evidence against the interference effect. It is possible that interference is attenuated in languages with richer case marking.
In sum, the cross-linguistic experiments on the time course of syntactic and semantic interference from sentence-internal distractors support existing evidence of syntactic and semantic interference during sentence comprehension. Our data further show that both types of interference effects can arise simultaneously. Our cross-linguistic experiments investigating semantic cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors suggest that this type of interference may arise only in specific linguistic contexts.