Coreferential Interpretations of Reflexives in Picture Noun Phrases: an Experimental Approach Micah Goldwater University of Texas at Austin Jeffrey T. Runner University of Rochester

Binding Theory In English, reflexives (himself) and pronouns (him) have a nearly complementary distribution:  Ken i saw himself i/*j.  Ken i saw him j/*i. In the same structural position, a reflexive and a pronoun will have complementary referential domains

Binding Theory Binding Theory: the structural constraints on the relationship between different types of NPs and their (potential) antecedents. Based on Chomsky (1981): A: a reflexive must be bound within a local domain (roughly a sentence). B: a pronoun must be free (=not bound) within that same local domain.  Ken i saw himself i/*j. (Bound by NP within S)  Ken i saw him j/*i. (Not bound by NP within S)

Problem for Binding Theory: Picture Noun Phrases Noun Phrase headed by a “representational” noun:  picture, film, photograph, novel, etc.  Harry’s picture of Joe Head N itself may have several “arguments”; e.g., Harry and Joe in:  Harry’s picture of Joe “Possessor” and PP are both optional:  a picture of Joe, Harry’s picture, etc.

Picture Noun Phrases Reflexives in picture NPs may violate Binding Theory (Pollard & Sag, 1992):  John said that [ S there was [a picture of himself] in the post office]  John was going to get even with Mary. That picture of himself in the paper would really annoy her, as would the other stunts he had planned.

Picture Noun Phrases Influenced by context in some cases (from Pollard & Sag 1992)  John i was going to get even with Mary. That picture of himself i in the paper would really annoy her, as would the other stunts he had planned.  Mary was quite taken aback by the publicity John i was receiving. *That picture of himself i in the paper would really annoy her, as would the other stunts he had planned.

Picture Noun Phrases Kuno (1987) identified several pragmatic factors influencing Picture NP reflexives  Awareness: John knows that there is a picture of himself in the morning paper. *John still doesn't know that there is a picture of himself in the morning paper.  Indirect Agenthood: I hate the story about himself that John always tells. *I hate the story about himself that John likes to hear.

Logophor Analysis Treat reflexives in Picture NPs as “logophors”  Logophors are reflexive noun phrases which are not strictly structurally controlled  Not subject to structural Binding Theory  Interpretation constrained in part by discourse factors Approach taken by Pollard & Sag (1992) and Reinhart & Reuland (1993)

Structural vs. logophoric reflexives What is evidence for treating picture NP reflexives as logophoric reflexives? Two “tests” for two classes of reflexive from literature  ellipsis test  “only” test

Structural vs. logophoric reflexives Building on Reinhart & Reuland (1993), Grodzinsky & Reinhart (1993) Structural reflexives  constrained by BT  bound variables Logophoric reflexives  not constrained by BT  constrained by pragmatic/discourse factors  bound variable or coreferential anaphora (like pronouns)

Ellipsis as a test for bound variable vs. coreferential anaphora Pronouns can be bound variable or coreferential anaphora note: x,y for bound variable; underlining for coreferentiality; [e]=elided phrase Alfred thinks he is a great cook, and Felix does [e], too.  Alfred x thinks that x is a great cook, and Felix y  Alfred thinks that he is a great cook, and Felix

Ellipsis as a test for bound variable vs. coreferential anaphora Reflexives can be bound variable anaphora only (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) Lucie praised herself, and Lili did [e], too.  Lucie x praised x, and Lili y  ??Lucie praised herself, and Lili This claim is not uncontroversial (cf., Sells et al for discussion)

Ellipsis as a test for bound variable vs. coreferential anaphora Logophors are like pronouns: can be bound variable or coreferential anaphora Lucie liked the picture of herself, and Lili did [e], too.  Lucie x liked the picture of x, and Lili y  Lucie liked the picture of herself, and Lili

'Only' as a test for bound variable vs. coreferential anaphora Pronouns Only Alfred thinks he is a great cook.  Alfred x is the only person(x) such that x thinks x is a great cook.  Alfred is the only person that thinks Alfred is a great cook. Reflexives: Only Lucie praised herself.  Lucie x is the only person(x) such that x praised x.  ??Lucie is the only person that praised Lucie.

'Only' as a test for bound variable vs. coreferential anaphora Logophors: Only Lucie buys pictures of herself.  Lucie x is the only person(x) such that x buys pictures of x.  Lucie is the only person that buys pictures of Lucie.

Summary Pronouns can have both bound variable and coreferential interpretations Reflexives receive bound variable interpretations Logophors are like pronouns, and can have both bound variable and coreferential interpretations If picture NP reflexives are logophors, they should be able to have both bound variable and coreferential interpretations

Current Research We wanted to investigate the claim that picture NP reflexives were logophors and that they could receive both bound variable and coreferential interpretations Apply ellipsis and “only” tests in an experimental setting Basic question: do native speakers interpret picture NP reflexives as both coreferential and bound variable anaphora?

Current Research 16 participants (University of Rochester undergraduates) Seated in front of a computer monitor Listened to prerecorded sentences Verified if displayed scene matched the sentences heard by pushing a yes or no button We monitored their eye-movements as well (data not reported here)

Materials Ellipsis/No-Ellipsis condition:  Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is, too  No-Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is seated below a picture of himself, too Only/No-Only condition:  Only Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself  No-Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself

Displays Three different displays  Subject Match, Alternate Match, No Match: Subject Match: both dolls seated below picture of subject Alternate Match: each doll seated below a picture of himself No Match: second doll seated below picture of third doll

Additional details Three different predicates used  is seated below, is standing below, is lying below Scenes, pictures, dolls’ positions and roles, and “yes” vs. “no” responses counterbalanced Fillers containing similar sentences but with no reflexives, Ellipsis or ‘only’, also included

Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is, too No-Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is seated below a picture of himself, too Ellipsis/No-Ellipsis condition Predictions – Subject match display  If reflexives can receive coreferential reading (=elided ‘himself’ interpreted as Joe), more “yes” responses on Ellipsis condition are expected Subject Match: both dolls seated below picture of subject

Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is, too Ellipsis/No-Ellipsis condition  On about 18% of trials, participants indicate that the elided reflexive refers to subject doll  On only about 1% of No-Ellipsis trials do they interpret reflexive as subject doll Subject Match: both dolls seated below picture of subject * p<.05

Ellipsis/No-Ellipsis condition Predictions – Alternate match display  If reflexives can receive coreferential reading (=elided ‘himself’ interpreted as Joe), more “yes” responses on No-Ellipsis condition are expected Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is, too No-Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is seated below a picture of himself, too Alternate Match: each doll seated below a picture of himself

Ellipsis/No-Ellipsis condition On about 87% of trials participants agree that elided reflexive refers to non-subject doll On virtually 100% of No-Ellipsis trials participants interpret reflexive as referring to non-subject doll Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is, too Alternate Match: each doll seated below a picture of himself * p<.01

Ellipsis/No-Ellipsis condition Predictions – No match display  Should be very few “yes” responses on either condition  Results: virtually zero “yes” responses Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is, too No-Ellipsis Joe is seated below a picture of himself and Ken is seated below a picture of himself, too No Match: second doll seated below picture of third doll

Only/No-Only condition Predictions – Subject match display  If reflexives can receive coreferential reading (=“Joe is the only person seated below a picture of Joe”), more “yes” responses on No-Only condition expected Subject Match: both dolls seated below picture of subject Only Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself No-Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself

Only/No-Only condition On about 91% of Only trials participants interpret reflexive as referring to subject (=9% of trials it referred to non-subject) On virtually 100% of No-Only trials reflexive referred to subject Subject Match: both dolls seated below picture of subject (Only) Joe is seated below a picture of himself p<.05 *

Only/No-Only condition Predictions – Alternate match display  If reflexives can receive coreferential reading (=“Only Joe is seated below a picture of Joe), more “yes” responses on No-Only condition expected Only Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself No-Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself Alternate Match: each doll seated below a picture of himself

Only/No-Only condition On about 9% of Only trials participants interpreted reflexive as referring to subject and not non-subject On virtually 100% of No-Only trials participants interpreted reflexive as referring to subject (Only) Joe is seated below a picture of himself Alternate Match: each doll seated below a picture of himself

Only/No-Only condition Predictions – No match display  Should be all “yes” responses on both conditions  Results: virtually 100% “yes” responses Only Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself No-Only Joe is seated below a picture of himself No Match: second doll seated below picture of third doll

Latency Effects Measured latency from start of instruction until “yes”/ “no” response button pushed Expectation  Latency increased on trials involving increased “competition” from multiple interpretations Subject Match and Alternate Match  Multiple interpretations available with Ellipsis/Only  Predicts higher latencies on these conditions  No Match condition provides base line Different scenes should not affect latencies on No-Ellipsis/No-Only conditions

Latency Effects (all conditions) Main effects: Construction, Match Interactions: Construction x Y/N; Construction x Match; Y/N x Match (p<.0001); Construction x Y/N x Match Yes Ellipsis/Only No Ellipsis/Only

Latency Effects (Ellipsis/Only conditions) Main effects: Construction, Match Interaction: Construction x Match (p=.04) Ellipsis: SM>AM,NM; AM=NM Only: SM=AM; AM,SM>NM Ellipsis Only

Conclusions Coreferential interpretation available for reflexives in picture NPs in Ellipsis and ‘only’ constructions If coreferential interpretation indicates logophoric use of reflexive, then this study supports the claim that picture NP reflexives are logophors This conclusion supports the view of Binding Theory advocated in Pollard & Sag (1992) and Reinhart & Reuland (1993)  Structural Binding Theory for true argument reflexives  Logophoric analysis for picture NP reflexives

Future Directions Directly compare picture NP reflexives with other “argument” reflexives: bound variable vs. coreferential readings in Ellipsis and ‘only’ construction  Goldwater & Runner, in progress Test Kuno’s and Pollard & Sag’s claims that picture NP reflexives are sensitive to pragmatic factors  Kaiser, Runner, Sussman & Tanenhaus, in progress Further investigate reflexives in picture NPs containing possessors  Runner, Sussman & Tanenhaus (2003), in progress

Acknowledgments Thanks to  Rachel Sussman  Katherine Crosswhite  Michael Tanenhaus

References Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris. Grodzinsky, Y. & Reinhart, T. (1986) "The Innateness of Binding and Coreference," Linguistic Inquiry 24.1: Kuno, S. (1987) Functional Syntax, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pollard, C. & I. Sag (1992) "Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory," Linguistic Inquiry 23.2: Pollard, C. & I. Sag (1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reinhart, T. & E. Reuland (1993) "Reflexivity," Linguistic Inquiry 24.4: Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S. and Tanenhaus, M.K. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 81.1, B1-B13. Sells, P., A. Zaenen, & D. Zec (1986) "Reflexivization Variation: Relations between Syntax, Semantics, and Lexical Structure," in M. Iida et al., Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure, CSLI.