1. Predictability affects pronoun production only for some verb types
Jennifer E. Arnold, Sandra A. Zerkle, Kathryn Weatherford & Elise C. Rosa
Funded by NSF Grant to J. Arnold
Max 6’ wide by 4’ high CUNY, 4’x4’ NCCG (72x48, 48x48) 48” x 34” currently (4’x2.8’)
Research Question: Does predictability affect reference production?
YES:
Some theories suggest that predictable words/structures/references are reduced (Jurafsky, 1996; Levy & Jaeger, 2007; Mahowald et al., 2013)
Predictable discourse contexts lead to greater pronoun use (Arnold, 1998)
In transfer verbs, goals are more predictable and also tend to be pronominalized (Arnold, 2001)
NO:
Implicit causality affects predictability but not pronoun use (Fukumura & van Gompel, 2010; Kehler et al., 2008; Rohde & Kehler, 2013 )
Previous studies used only sentence-continuation to test pronoun use. In a more naturalistic paradigm, do we see predictability effects for both verb types? If not, why?
Question 2: Does predictability affect reference in Emotion Events? (Weatherford, Rosa & Arnold, in prep).
Story-telling methodology: Participants learn facts about the characters, then read the context and fill in with the appropriate fact. * *
Implicit Cause continuation
Facts learned:
The driver was good at reading maps.
The driver had a twin brother.
Context:
The driver and the duke took a short cut to town . The driver amazed the duke because…
Sample response: “{He/ The driver}” was good at reading maps. ns ns
(*)
Exp. 1 – Fact story telling
Exp. 3 – Sentence completion (active only)
Cause x subject interaction *
Non-Cause continuation
Facts learned:
The duke was bad with directions.
The duke hated getting dressed up.
Context:
The driver and the duke took a short cut to town . The driver amazed the duke because…
Sample response: “{He/ The duke}” was bad with directions.
Answer: NO, implicit cause predictability does not affect pronoun use consistently
Exp. 2 – Fact story telling with pictures
Cause x subject x voice interaction
Question 1: Does predictability affect reference in Transfer Events?
Story-telling methodology: Participants hear a description of the first panel and describe the second panel. Together the pictures tell a murder-mystery story.
Manipulations of target character:
subject vs. nonsubject  goal vs. source  same- vs. different-gender
Results: More pronouns (and zeros) for goals than sources.
Question 3: Do both verb types affect predictability in the same way?
Method 1: Rating studies: Provide context and ask participants to rate which character will be mentioned next.
Method 2: Corpus Analysis. Sample from Fisher corpus; must be a past-tense verb with a following utterance
Question 1: Which of the two arguments is mentioned in the next sentence? (I.e., which is predictable?)
Question 2: Are likely referents also discourse-salient? What are the discourse properties of the goal/source and experiencer/stimulus arguments?
TRANSFER EVENTS
“The duchess handed the painting to the duke.”
Goal chosen on 71% trials.
 Goals are predictable
EMOTION EVENTS
“The driver and the duke took a short cut to town . The driver amazed the duke (because)…”
Exp. 1: no “because” provided: 61% Implicit Cause chosen (also 69% Nonsubjects).
Exp. 2: with “because”: 78% Implicit Cause chosen (no Subject effect).
Implicit causes are more predictable after “because”
If response planning occurs before “because”, implicit causality effects should be low
Goal continuation condition
Context:
The Duchess handed the painting to the Duke. or
The Duke received the painting from the Duchess.
Sample response:
“and {the Duke / he / Ø} threw it in the closet”
Source continuation condition
Context:
The butler brought some coffee to the maid. or
The maid accepted some coffee from the butler.
Sample response:
“and {the butler / he / Ø} lit a fire.”
TRANSFER EVENTS Goal is subject Goal is nonsubj.
bought, got, learned, took ed, gave, handed, passed, sent
 Goals are predictable
EMOTION EVENTS
Cause is subject Cause is nonsubj.
annoyed, offended, surprised, upset appreciated, hated, liked, noticed, respected, trusted
 Implicit causes are NOT predictable *
Rosa & Arnold (2017)
Other cartoon studies
(Zerkle et al., 2015; Exp. 1)
(Zerkle et al., 2015; Exp. 2)
(Zerkle & Arnold, 2017)
Experiencers tend to be:
Animate
1st or 2nd (vs. 3rd) person
Given
Pronominal
 NON-Causes (not implicit causes) are discourse salient
Goals tend to be:
Animate
1st or 2nd (vs. 3rd) person
Given
Pronominal
 Goals are discourse salient ns ns * *
Story-continuation studies
(Rosa & Arnold, 2017; Exp. 2)
(Rosa & Arnold, 2017; Exp. 3)
Answer: YES, goal predictability increases pronoun/zero use
Summary: Predictability effects only for transfer events
Transfer verbs: goals are consistently predictable AND discourse-salient; strong effects seen on reference form.
Emotion verbs: implicit causes (stimulus arguments) are not always predictable and not discourse-salient; inconsistent effects on reference form.
Why are verbtypes different?
Hyp. 1: predictability is not always computed early enough for it to affect reference form choices
Hyp. 2: predictability only affects reference form when it signals discourse salience (goals), and not when another role (experiencer) is more salient
References. Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic role on pronoun use …. Discourse Processes, 31,  Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model …. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194.  Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density …. In B. Schölkopfet al.(Eds.)…Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., and Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: …Cognition, 126(2),  Rosa, E. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2017). Predictability affects production: …. JML, 94,  Weatherford, K., & Arnold, (in prep). Thematic role effects in causal discourses.  Zerkle, S.A., Rosa, E. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2015). CUNY poster.  Zerkle, S. A., & Arnold, J. E. (2017) CUNY poster.
Contact: See jaapstimuli.web.unc.edu for stimuli used