1. More Incrementality I.Pronoun Reference II.Language Production

2. Condition B study designs…

3. Backward Anaphora Studies

4. Japanese

5. which of his children (DAT) the man (NOM) … which of his children (NOM) the man (DAT) …

6. Japanese pronouns and their antecedents Verb the man-nom NP-dat which of his children which of his children (DAT) the man (NOM) …

7. Japanese pronouns and their antecedents Verb the man-nom NP-dat which of his children NP-dat which of his children which of his children (DAT) the man (NOM) …

8. Japanese pronouns and their antecedents Verb the man-nom NP-dat which of his children NP-dat which of his children Verb NP-nom which of his children which of his children (DAT) the man (NOM) … the man-dat which of his children (NOM) the man (DAT) … *?*?*?*?

9. which of his children (DAT) the man (NOM) … which of his children (NOM) the man (DAT) … Gender Mismatch the woman Gender Mismatch paradigm: Carreiras et al. (1996); Osterhout et al. (1997); Sturt (2003)

10. Conditions a. Scrambled - Gender Mismatch Adverb / [his / which NP]-dat / Adverb / NP FEMALE -nom / Adverb / NP-acc / verb-Q / NP MALE -top / verb b. Scrambled - Gender Match Adverb / [his / which NP]-dat / Adverb / NP MALE -nom / Adverb / NP-acc / verb-Q / NP FEMALE -top / verb c. Non-scrambled - Gender Mismatch Adverb / [his / which NP]-nom / Adverb / NP FEMALE -dat / Adverb / NP-acc / verb-Q / NP MALE -top / verb d. Non-scrambled - Gender Match Adverb / [his / which NP]-nom / Adverb / NP MALE -dat / Adverb / NP-acc / verb-Q / NP MALE -top / verb.

11. Results: Scrambled conditions Slowdown at mismatching NP is observed. F1(1, 39) = 8.6, p<.01; F2(1,23)=7.4, p<.01 ± Match his/her

12. Results: Non-scrambled conditions Slowdown at mismatching NP only when NP is possible antecedent. Fs<1 ± Match his/her

13. English

14. Immediate Constraint Application While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she … Jessica … Russell … Self-Paced Reading, Gender Mismatch Paradigm (Kazanina, Lau, Lieberman, Phillips, & Yoshida, 2004)

15. Immediate Constraint Application While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. She was taking classes full-time while Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. She was taking classes full-time while Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she … She … Jessica … Russell … while Jessica … while Russell … Self-Paced Reading, Gender Mismatch Paradigm (Kazanina, Lau, Lieberman, Phillips, & Yoshida, 2004)

17. Results GME at the 2 nd NP in non-PrC pair while Jessica Russell (Kazanina et al., 2004)

18. Results GME at the 2 nd NP in non-PrC pair NO GME at the 2 nd NP in PrC pair Condition C – immediate while Jessica Russell (Kazanina et al., 2004)

19. Experiment 2 (check back soon!) It seemed to him that John … It seemed to him that Mary … It seemed to his mother that John … It seemed to his mother that Mary …

20. Condition B & Active Search Hajime –Mary made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Bob was having an intimate conversation with the host.] –Sam made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Bob was having an intimate conversation with the host.] –Mary made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Sue was having an intimate conversation with the host.] –Sam made fun of him in a very harsh manner [while Sue was having an intimate conversation with the host.] –Rationale: if binding relation is not completed at pronoun, due to Condition B, search for antecedent will continue

21. Condition B & Active Search Takuya –Although John claimed that Mary insulted him, Bill didn’t tell that to Ken. –Although John claimed that Mary insulted him, Sue didn’t tell that to Ken. –Although Mary claimed that John insulted him, Bill didn’t tell that to Ken. –Although Mary claimed that John insulted him, Sue didn’t tell that to Ken. –Rationale: if binding relation is not completed at pronoun, due to Condition B, search for antecedent will continue

22. Time-Course Information Backwards anaphora studies: critical region is potential antecedent position, directly regulated by binding constraint Condition B studies: –Critical region provides information about what happened previously –Critical region is not directly regulated by binding constraint –Presumes active search for binder

23. Where to look for antecedents a.Structurally b.Representation-type

24. What do Pronouns Reactivate? Love & Swinney (1995) –Jeff had read about problems with savings and loan institutions, so he went to the bank to ask about the safety that it provided with respect to CD investments.

25. Sturt 2003 Experiment 2 Accessible-mismatch/Inaccessible-match Jonathan was pretty worried at the City Hospital. The surgeon [ RC who treated Jonathan] had pricked herself with a used syringe needle. There should be an investigation soon. Accessible-mismatch/Inaccessible-mismatch Jennifer was pretty worried at the City Hospital. The surgeon [ RC who treated Jennifer] had pricked herself with a used syringe needle. There should be an investigation soon.

26. Discourse Interference? Lisa –{Sue, Joe} is a very enthusiastic fan of football. {She, he} likes to add {her,his} own acrobatics to those already being performed. Last game, however, this led to a rather embarrassing result… –Sue was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Sue kicked her during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-match, inacc-match] –Joe was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Joe kicked her during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-match, inacc-mismatch] –Joe was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Joe kicked him during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-mismatch, inacc-match] –Sue was painfully aware that a cheerleader noticed when Sue kicked him during a failed cartwheel attempt. [acc-mismatch, inacc-mismatch]

27. Discourse Interference? Clare –When their small business had financial troubles and there wasn’t enough money for both their salaries –Jane was generous and told Bob to pay him first. –Jane was generous and told Bob to pay her first. –Jane was generous and told Mary to pay her first. –Jane was generous and told Mary to pay him first. –Rationale: biases in favor of inaccessible antecedent, (a) distance, (b) potentially reflexive predicate, (c) plausibility

28. Antecedent Type Effects Fiorentino/Minai conjecture… –On Principle B studies, “we observed the following. The results from the experiments using proper names showed effects of binding-theory incompatible antecedents (Badecker & Straub, 2002; Kennison, 2003). However, with full NPs (Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Clifton et al., 1997) and when the accessible proper name is introduced in a lead-in context sentence (Kennison, 2003; Runner, 2003) the apparent violations of Principle B were not evident.” –“If we assume that the early filter works on discourse representations, then it might be possible to propose a split among full NPs and proper names in terms of the richness of their discourse representation.”

29. Principle B-as-initial-filter Nicol (1988), Nicol & Swinney (1989): cross-modal priming study in which subjects had to make a lexical decision to a visually presented word while listening to sentences –The boxer told the skier that the doctor for the team would blame him for the recent injury. punch – facilitation slope – facilitation nurse - no effect

30. Principle B-as-initial-filter Clifton, Kennison & Albrecht (1997): self-paced reading task. The supervisor(s) is a binding-accessible antecedent for his in (c-d) (but there is a number-match only in (d)), but not for him in (a-b). a)The supervisors paid him yesterday to finish typing the manuscript. b)The supervisor paid him yesterday to finish typing the manuscript. c)The supervisors paid his assistant yesterday to finish typing the manuscript. d)The supervisor paid his assistant yesterday to finish typing the manuscript. A number mismatch/match effect found in (c) vs. (d), but not in (a) vs. (b) => support for PrB as initial filter hypothesis fast slow

31. Principle B-as-a-late-filter Badecker & Straub (2002) a)John thought that Bill owed him another opportunity to solve the problem. b)John thought that Beth owed him another opportunity to solve the problem. The two conditions are different only in the gender of the inaccessible antecedent of him; yet reading times at the two words following him were faster in (a) than in (b) => binding constraints did not immediately rule out binding-inaccessible positions from the consideration.

32. How to Restrict Antecedents

33. If the early filter works off discourse representations (see F/M conjecture), then how is a constraint like Principle B implemented?

34. How to Restrict Antecedents [± reflexive] marking on predicate? –Self-anaphor marks predicate as reflexive, excludes all else –Pronoun marks predicate as non-reflexive, excludes co-arguments

35. How to Restrict Antecedents Matt –I convinced the author to praise him because of the work’s merits. –I convinced the authors to praise him because of the work’s merits. –I convinced the author to praise his manuscript because of the work’s merits. –I convinced the authors to praise his manuscript because of the work’s merits. –Rationale: “the pronominal expression may not corefer with the matrix antecedent, even though it is within a separate clause […] We are thus increasing the level of resolution the parser must have to implement Principle B as an initial filter - it can’t rely on a simpler strategy like ‘clausemates’.

36. How to Restrict Antecedents Ivan –Pedro no quiere que el venga. P not want that he come-subj. –Pedro no cree que el venga. P not believe that he come-subj. –Pedro no quiere que ella venga. P not want that she come-subj. –Pedro no cree que ella venga. P not believe that she come-subj.

37. Incrementality in Comprehension Overall picture…?

38. Incrementality in Production

39. Different domains –Speech errors –Flexibility and incrementality –Look-ahead in planning

40. V. Ferreira 1996 Incremental models predict easier production with syntactic flexibility for two reasons –All structures are freely available to be filled –Strict incremental construction permits the most active lexical representation (rather than syntactic competition) to determine structural decisions.

41. + I gave toys children to 250ms 500ms 1500ms 250ms Until button press I gave toys to the children. I gave the children toys. I donated toys to the children. *I donated the children toys.

44. She gave it to the child. *She gave the child it. She gave the box to him. She gave him the box.

46. confused him story 250ms 1500ms 1000ms Until button press The story confused John. John was confused by the story. The story confused him. *Him was confused by the story.

47. confused rejected