Results of Eyetracking

1
Results of Eyetracking Self-Paced Moving Window
Studies
2
Ambiguity EffectsFirst-Pass Times in Eyetracking
At Ambiguous NP
At Disambiguating Verb
3
Ambiguity EffectsTotal Times in Eyetracking
At Ambiguous NP
At Disambiguating Verb
4
Ambiguity EffectsSelf-paced Moving Window Times
At Disambiguating Verb
At Ambiguous NP
Notice direction of Plaus Effects at NP !!!
5
Verbs Rule! But Why?

• In these sentences, verb comes before relevant
  noun, so gets a head start?
• BUT, Trueswell (1995) found same for Reduced
  Relatives, where noun comes first (e.g.,
  evidence examined )
• Verb Bias may be retrieved as part of recognizing
  verb
• While plausibility must be computed on-line for
  particular verb-noun combinations, which probably
  takes longer?
• Verbs determine how everything else in sentence
  combines, so weighted most heavily?
• In English, verbs appear early in sentences, so
  we learn to rely heavily on the predictive info
  they provide?
• So what do speakers of verb-final languages rely
  on instead? Plausibility of possible noun
  combinations???

6
Correlations between Ambiguity Effect Size at
Disambiguation Verb Bias Strength Across All
Verbs
First-Pass Times
Moving Window Times
7
Correlational Evidence Specifically for Parallel
Parsing

• When Verb Bias Plausibility provided
  conflicting cues
• Clause-Bias Verb Plausible-as-DO NP
• As DO-Bias INcreases, difficulty INcreases
• r .56 (First Pass)
• .47 (Moving Window)
• DO-Bias Verb Implausible-as-DO NP
• As Clause-Bias INcreases, difficulty DEcreases
• r -.58 (First Pass)
• -.59 (Moving Window)
• So, when Plausibility cue conflicts w/ Verb Bias
• - Other structure is considered
• - To the extent the V is used in that other
  structure

8
Could ALL Non-Syntactic Influence be on
Reanalysis, not Initial Parse???

• Frazier (1995)
• It may be significant that garden paths have
  never been convincingly demonstrated in the
  processing of analysis A (the structurally
  simplest one) In such cases, if analysis A
  ultimately proves to be correct, perceivers
  should show evidence of having been garden-pathed
  by a syntactically more complex analysis even
  though the syntactically simpler analysis is
  correct.
• So, need to demonstrate early influence of
  non-syntactic factors even when GP Model predicts
  no reanalysis
• GP Model says simplest alternative tried first
• If correct, no reason to try others, so no
  reanalysis
• And thus no reason for non-syntactic factors to
  influence parse

9

• Interactive models do predict garden-pathing
  in
• simpler structures, if lexical /or contextual
  cues
• push toward more complex possible structure
• But they predict it should be smaller than in
  more
• complex structures because
• - Structural ( conceptual) simplicity not
  ignored in such models
• - Just not the only important factor in initial
  interpretation
• - Simpler sentences are generally more
  common
• - So other cues have to fight structural
  frequency effects

10
Wilson Garnsey (2006)

• Put both kinds of verbs in both kinds of
  structures
• Clause-Bias Verb
• The ticket agent admitted the mistake might
  not have been caught.
• The ticket agent admitted the mistake
  because she had been caught.
• DO-Bias Verb
• The CIA director confirmed the rumor could
  mean a security breach.
• The CIA director confirmed the rumor when he
  testified before Congress.
• ALL post-verb NPs plausible as DOs
• Since DO-sentence with implausible-as-DO NP is
  implausible!

11
Length-Corrected Residual RT at Disambiguation
12
Convinced???

• According to GP Model, in DO-Structure Sentence
• Should never be any reason to reanalyze
• So no need to go back reread
• So why do people reread earlier words more in
• DO-Structure Sentence w/ Clause-Bias Verb?
• Because Verb Bias does influence initial
  interpretation, not just reanalysis?
• Why do people
• Slow down stay put in Clause-Structure
  Sentences w/ DO-Bias Verbs?
• But reread earlier words instead in DO-Structure
  Sentences w/ Clause-Bias Verbs?