Discourse influences during parsing are delayed Keith Rayner, Simon Garrod,& Charles A. Perfetti Cognition, 45, 1992

Background… How does context influence parsing strategy? Initial parsing strategies are not influenced by context or pragmatics: Garden-Path Model Initial parsing strategies are influenced by context/pragmatics: Interactive Model

Parsing in two different syntactically ambiguous texts Garden-Path Model: we can resolve local ambiguity in the sentence syntax by relying solely on structural information Minimal Attachment (MA) & Late Closure (1) Prepositional Phrase (PP) MA says #2 is more difficult to parse: John put the book on the table and went to sleep. John put the book on the table into his briefcase.

(2) Reduced Relative Clause (RRC) MA says #2 is more difficult to parse (and even more difficult than #2 in the aforementioned PP). The woman rushed to the hospital and forgot her laundry. The woman rushed to the hospital had a pretty baby girl. Parsing in two different syntactically ambiguous texts

Contextual Influences on Parsing? John put the book on the table… Perhaps context & postnominal referents help select among several possible candidates (e.g., multiple books in the room in various locations)… “Attention Selection” Or, perhaps postnominal “re-orients” the reader to the appropriate context, thus enabling identification of the referent. “Attention Orientation” #2 is the focus of this paper

Questions Does establishing reference influence parsing decision? What is the impact of attention-orienting postnominals that are either (1) within “discourse focus”, or (2) out of “discourse focus” Does context influence parsing more on simpler text structures (i.e., PP vs. RRC)?

Participants 18 Young Adults (read passages in context) Another set of Ss read target sentences in isolation No individual difference data reported (e.g., education, vocabulary, WM, etc.)

Sentence Materials Two versions of target sentences: PP & RRC Three versions of each passage: Minimal Attachment (MA) Non-Minimal Attachment, Discourse Focused (NMA-F) Non-Minimal Attachment, Discourse Non-Focused (NMA-NF) 27 experimental & 15 filler passages each

PP - MA Susan had real trouble trying to find the man who had promised to give her a lift into town. She looked for him in the office but without success. Eventually she discovered /the man/ in the car/ and they drove/ away into town/.

PP - NMA-NF June always enjoyed theatrical parties and it was her ambition to be taken out by a real star. This evening she was particularly interested in a man who had arrived in a very expensive Italian sports car, but she couldn’t find him anywhere. She tried to circulate among the other guests in the hope of attracting someone’s attention. Eventually she discovered /the man/ in the car/ talking to one/ of her friends/.

PP - NMA-F June always enjoyed theatrical parties and it was her ambition to be taken out by a real star. This evening she was particularly interested in a man who had arrived in a very expensive Italian sports car, but she couldn’t find him anywhere. Eventually she discovered /the man/ in the car/ talking to one/ of her friends/.

RR - MA Jane loved to arrange fashion advertisements. At the back she put up a dais for her central figure, a model wearing one of the store’s most expensive garments. Around this she placed bunches of flowers. Then /the model/ perched on the dais/ and Jane took/ the picture/. Everything worked out very well.

RR - NMA-NF Gillian had arrived late at her studio and faced a tight deadline for the fashion cover shot. In the center of the tableau she perched a model on a narrow dais. Around her she arranged some other people in various poses all observing a dangerous looking cut-out of a panther. Every time she thought she had the scene set someone would move out of position. Even the lights were acting up that day. Eventually it all seemed perfect. Then /the model/ perched on the dais/ lost her balance/. /She crashed/ into the rest of the tableau and everything had to be arranged over again.

RR - NMA-F Gillian had arrived late at her studio and faced a tight deadline for the fashion cover shot. In the center of the tableau she perched a model on a narrow dais. Eventually it all seemed perfect. Then /the model/ perched on the dais/ lost her balance/. /She crashed/ into the rest of the tableau and everything had to be arranged over again.

Other details Target regions always on the same line “Attempt was made” to have the size (# of letters) of target regions 3 & 4 very similar… Scored for (1) First-pass reading time and (2) total reading time, with (3) # of regressions counted as well DV data reported in ms/character

PP Attachment

Regressions

Conclusions: PP Context influences parsing only after the initial parse Examining ONLY Total RT might suggest that discourse focus (NMA-F) might lead to context influencing immediate parsing, but first-pass RT suggests this isn’t the case (MA rt < NMA rts)

RRC Attachment

Regressions Similar as before: More likely to regress from regions 3 & 4 to regions 2 & 3 in the two NMA conditions than the MA.

Conclusions: RR Similar to PP: MA rt < NMA rts on first-pass reading time One noteable difference: Total reading time suggested discourse focus might help improve RTs

Overall Conclusions Pattern supports garden-path model: semantic information influences RT only after initial parsing decisions. Evidence: PP & RR RTs for target region within NMA sentences > MA sentences (even when provided context to “help” them identify the NMA interpretation). Context does influence ease of recovery from garden-pathing. Evidence: Total reading times for NMA-Focus, esp. for RR

Questions… Multiple referents in context, vs. just one? Type of text (e.g., genre)? Length of total passage?