Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Eye-Tracking (4) (remove)
Institute
Infants' lexical processing is modulated by featural manipulations made to words, suggesting that early lexical representations are sufficiently specified to establish a match with the corresponding label. However, the precise degree of detail in early words requires further investigation due to equivocal findings. We studied this question by assessing children’s sensitivity to the degree of featural manipulation (Chapters 2 and 3), and sensitivity to the featural makeup of homorganic and heterorganic consonant clusters (Chapter 4). Gradient sensitivity on the one hand and sensitivity to homorganicity on the other hand would suggest that lexical processing makes use of sub-phonemic information, which in turn would indicate that early words contain sub-phonemic detail. The studies presented in this thesis assess children’s sensitivity to sub-phonemic detail using minimally demanding online paradigms suitable for infants: single-picture pupillometry and intermodal preferential looking. Such paradigms have the potential to uncover lexical knowledge that may be masked otherwise due to cognitive limitations. The study reported in Chapter 2 obtained a differential response in pupil dilation to the degree of featural manipulation, a result consistent with gradient sensitivity. The study reported in Chapter 3 obtained a differential response in proportion of looking time and pupil dilation to the degree of featural manipulation, a result again consistent with gradient sensitivity. The study reported in Chapter 4 obtained a differential response to the manipulation of homorganic and heterorganic consonant clusters, a result consistent with sensitivity to homorganicity. These results suggest that infants' lexical representations are not only specific, but also detailed to the extent that they contain sub-phonemic information.
During sentence reading the eyes quickly jump from word to word to sample visual information with the high acuity of the fovea. Lexical properties of the currently fixated word are known to affect the duration of the fixation, reflecting an interaction of word processing with oculomotor planning. While low level properties of words in the parafovea can likewise affect the current fixation duration, results concerning the influence of lexical properties have been ambiguous (Drieghe, Rayner, & Pollatsek, 2008; Kliegl, Nuthmann, & Engbert, 2006). Experimental investigations of such lexical parafoveal-on-foveal effects using the boundary paradigm have instead shown, that lexical properties of parafoveal previews affect fixation durations on the upcoming target words (Risse & Kliegl, 2014). However, the results were potentially confounded with effects of preview validity.
The notion of parafoveal processing of lexical information challenges extant models of eye movements during reading. Models containing serial word processing assumptions have trouble explaining such effects, as they usually couple successful word processing to saccade planning, resulting in skipping of the parafoveal word. Although models with parallel word processing are less restricted, in the SWIFT model (Engbert, Longtin, & Kliegl, 2002) only processing of the foveal word can directly influence the saccade latency.
Here we combine the results of a boundary experiment (Chapter 2) with a predictive modeling approach using the SWIFT model, where we explore mechanisms of parafoveal inhibition in a simulation study (Chapter 4). We construct a likelihood function for the SWIFT model (Chapter 3) and utilize the experimental data in a Bayesian approach to parameter estimation (Chapter 3 & 4).
The experimental results show a substantial effect of parafoveal preview frequency on fixation durations on the target word, which can be clearly distinguished from the effect of preview validity. Using the eye movement data from the participants, we demonstrate the feasibility of the Bayesian approach even for a small set of estimated parameters, by comparing summary statistics of experimental and simulated data. Finally, we can show that the SWIFT model can account for the lexical preview effects, when a mechanism for parafoveal inhibition is added. The effects of preview validity were modeled best, when processing dependent saccade cancellation was added for invalid trials. In the simulation study only the control condition of the experiment was used for parameter estimation, allowing for cross validation. Simultaneously the number of free parameters was increased. High correlations of summary statistics demonstrate the capabilities of the parameter estimation approach. Taken together, the results advocate for a better integration of experimental data into computational modeling via parameter estimation.
Gender-inclusive language has evolved into a much-debated topic during the past years, discussed interdisciplinarily from theoretical to psycholinguistics, sociology, and economy – and by anyone who uses language.
Studies on German that primarily relied on questionnaires (reviewed in Braun et al. 2005), cloze tests (Klein 1988), and categorisation tasks with picture matching (Irmen & Köhncke 1996) disqualify the generically used masculine forms as pseudo-generic – failing their grammatically prescribed function to include referents of any Gender. Gender-balanced expressions (pair and split forms like Lehrer und Lehrerinnen) make explicit reference to female presence and participation, and thus elevate a more equitable interpretation.
Online methods to investigate the processing of Gender-sensitive language are surprisingly rare among research on the phenomenon, except for reaction time measures (Irmen & Köhncke 1996, Irmen & Kaczmarek 2000) and eye-tracking in reading (Irmen & Schumann 2011).
In addition, Gender-neutral language (GNL) has not been focused on in the majority of experiments, and when it was among the stimuli, results were inconclusive (De Backer & De Cuypere 2012) or found such alternatives to be ineffective (resembling masculine generics, Braun et al. 2005), despite the fact that guidelines on non-discriminatory language use commonly recommend these.
Gender-neutral (GN) expressions for personal reference in German include
• nominalised participles; nominalisations in general: Interessierte, Lehrende
• collective singulars: Publikum, Kollegium
• compounds (e.g., with a notion of “-person”): Ansprechpersonen, Lehrkräfte
• paraphrases that background a (gendered) subject: e.g., passives, relatives
In a visual world eye-tracking study, the comprehension of plural generics using masculine nouns and GN forms was tested for roles and occupations.
In complex stimulus scenarios, reference had to be established to referent images presented on a screen. At the end of each item, a question was asked in order to (re)identify the image that matched the referents of the respective setting best. Images depicted 1) a single person (protagonist), 2) an all-female group, 3) an all-male group, 4) a mixed Gender group of female and male members. The group referents were introduced with either a) masculine nouns (die Lehrer), b) female-specific feminine nouns (die Lehrerinnen), or c) one of the upper three nominal GN variants (die Lehrkräfte).
Results confirm the frequent male bias in masculine forms that are used as generics, that is, their male-specific interpretation. Furthermore, stereotypicality of nouns had an impact on responses. The GN alternatives, which are generally known to aim for indefinite reference (“marked” for Gender-fair language) were found to be most qualified to elicit mixed Gender group interpretations. When reference was established with GN terms, an inclusive response was consistently elicited. This was both indicated by eye movements and response proportions, but to a different extent depending on the particular GN noun type. Concepts that abstract from Gender in their linguistic forms (“neutralising” it) appear to be more inclusive, and thus better candidates for generic reference than masculines.
Previous studies on native language (L1) anaphor resolution have found that monolingual native speakers are sensitive to syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic constraints on pronouns and reflexive resolution. However, most studies have focused on English and other Germanic languages, and little is currently known about the online (i.e., real-time) processing of anaphors in languages with syntactically less restricted anaphors, such as Turkish. We also know relatively little about how 'non-standard' populations such as non-native (L2) speakers and heritage speakers (HSs) resolve anaphors.
This thesis investigates the interpretation and real-time processing of anaphors in German and in a typologically different and as yet understudied language, Turkish. It compares hypotheses about differences between native speakers' (L1ers) and L2 speakers' (L2ers) sentence processing, looking into differences in processing mechanisms as well as the possibility of cross-linguistic influence. To help fill the current research gap regarding HS sentence comprehension, it compares findings for this group with those for L2ers.
To investigate the representation and processing of anaphors in these three populations, I carried out a series of offline questionnaires and Visual-World eye-tracking experiments on the resolution of reflexives and pronouns in both German and Turkish. In the German experiments, native German speakers as well as L2ers of German were tested, while in the Turkish experiments, non-bilingual native Turkish speakers as well as HSs of Turkish with L2 German were tested. This allowed me to observe both cross-linguistic differences as well as population differences between monolinguals' and different types of bilinguals' resolution of anaphors.
Regarding the comprehension of Turkish anaphors by L1ers, contrary to what has been previously assumed, I found that Turkish has no reflexive that follows Condition A of Binding theory (Chomsky, 1981). Furthermore, I propose more general cross-linguistic differences between Turkish and German, in the form of a stronger reliance on pragmatic information in anaphor resolution overall in Turkish compared to German.
As for the processing differences between L1ers and L2ers of a language, I found evidence in support of hypotheses which propose that L2ers of German rely more strongly on non-syntactic information compared to L1ers (Clahsen & Felser, 2006, 2017; Cunnings, 2016, 2017) independent of a potential influence of their L1. HSs, on the other hand, showed a tendency to overemphasize interpretational contrasts between different Turkish anaphors compared to monolingual native speakers. However, lower-proficiency HSs were likely to merge different forms for simplified representation and processing. Overall, L2ers and HSs showed differences from monolingual native speakers both in their final interpretation of anaphors and during online processing. However, these differences were not parallel between the two types of bilingual and thus do not support a unified model of L2 and HS processing (cf. Montrul, 2012).
The findings of this thesis contribute to the field of anaphor resolution by providing data from a previously unexplored language, Turkish, as well as contributing to research on native and non-native processing differences. My results also illustrate the importance of considering individual differences in the acquisition process when studying bilingual language comprehension. Factors such as age of acquisition, language proficiency and the type of input a language learner receives may influence the processing mechanisms they develop and employ, both between and within different bilingual populations.