1. An experimental investigation of referential/non-referential asymmetries in syntactic reconstruction akira omaki anastasia conroy jeffrey lidz Quantitative Investigations of Theoretical Linguistics 3: June 2-4, 2008

2. what do syntactic judgments reveal about the grammar? … to help us determine the structure of the grammar

3. making an acceptability judgment meta-linguistic inferences contextual information construction of a mental model parser grammar

4. meta-linguistic inferences contextual information construction of a mental model parser grammar what we do… take a judgment from here …to be reflective of here

5. acceptability judgments grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis context hypothesis assume we find a construction where a factor, X, modulates acceptability we must determine whether X is referenced in the grammar or if the variance in acceptability can be described by the participant’s ability to create a context to make a judgment

6. grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis context hypothesis string meaning 1meaning 2 ✘ grammar context string meaning 1 meaning 2 ✘ ✘ string

7. acceptability judgments grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis context hypothesis ultimately, we must ask this question of every factor that influences acceptability judgments as a way to identify which factors the grammar references

8. acceptability judgments grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis context hypothesis we are going to investigate this issue with referentiality and reconstruction: a domain where it has been claimed that referentiality is referenced by the grammar

9. outline theoretical background Prin A- binding reconstruction referentiality referentiality and reconstructio n claims open questions experiment goals previous research design results discussion and conclusions

10. reflexives in English - Mary believes [that Bill kicked himself] - Bill believes [that Mary kicked himself] binding: principle A ✘ Accessible Inaccessible reflexives must be bound in a local domain (i.e., within the same clause) (Chomsky, 1981)

11. Wh-argument reconstruction Tom wondered which picture of himself [ S Alex saw ___] reconstruction interpretationsurface interpretation wh-movement adds a new interpretive possibility TomAlex

12. syntactic reconstruction and binding reconstruction interpretation low reading surface interpretation high reading Tom wondered which picture of himself [ S Alex saw ___]

13. Experimental study on reconstruction and binding Leddon 2006; Leddon & Lidz 2006 Argument-fronting vs. predicate fronting in adults (and children) in Truth Value Judgment Task Argument-fronting (both high & low ): Miss Cruella knew which picture of herself Janie put up. Predicate-fronting (high, low ): Mr. Whale knew how happy with himself Mr. Walrus was.

14. When only one of the interpretations is true in the context… Both high & low readings accepted for argument wh Only low readings accepted for predicate wh Leddon 2006

15. referentiality and reconstruction both interpretations are not always available… it has been argued that referentiality matters for reconstruction: Look at amount wh-questions (how many x) (e.g., Heycock, Fox & Nissenbaum)

16. referentiality background How many people did Jon decide to hire? – Referential: how many is the set of people being hired?  existential presupposition – Non-referential: inquiring about the number to be hired referential Non-referential

17. referentiality and reconstruction LF representations for “How many people did Jon decide to hire?” – referential  cardinality of a subset of a presupposed set [How many people] 1 did Jon decide to hire t 1 – Non-referential  simply inquiring about number [How many] 1 did Jon decide to hire t 1 people High reading low reading

18. referentiality and reconstruction On the surface they look identical in English, but these two readings can be expressed in these word orders in other languages Referential Combien de chansons vas-tu chanter? How many of songs will you sing? Non-referential Combien vas-tu chanter de chansons? How manywill you sing of songs?

19. creation verbs & non-referential readings creation verb: cause x to be in existence How many pictures will you draw? – For what number x, you will cause there to be x many pictures in existence? (reconstructed) – #For what number x, there are x many pictures you will cause there to be in existence? (surface) Surface readings require existential presupposition, but this is incompatible with the semantics of creation verbs only reconstructed (low) reading allowed for creation verbs

20. back to reconstruction and binding Fox and Nissenbaum (2004) argue that creation verbs block binding of reflexive in the surface position (see also Heycock 1995, Kroch 1989, Longobardi 1991, Sportiche 2006) Non-creation verb, referential OK I asked John how many pictures of himself Mary is likely to look at t. Creation verb, non-referential *I asked John how many pictures of himself Mary is likely to draw t.

21. summary on referentiality referential amount Qs: asking for a subset of a presupposed set  surface reading non-referential amount Qs: asking about the number  reconstructed reading creation verbs force reconstructed reading due to its semantics when creation verbs are present, binding possibilities are argued to be restricted to low reading

22. outline theoretical background Prin A- binding reconstruction referentiality referentiality and reconstructio n claims open questions experiment goals previous research design results discussion and conclusions

23. question about the judgment Fox and Nissenbaum: reconstruction is forced because the semantics does not match- surface scope (i.e., a grammatical constraint) another possibility is that in the judgment, one cannot construe the proper semantic context therefore, it is a question whether this judgment represents something about the grammar

24. we need to find out grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis claims that the restrictions on interpretation derive from the grammar (semantics of creation verbs) claims that the restrictions on interpretation derive from the ability to create the relevant context

25. .. One needs to know how to tease apart the two potential interpretations. The most straight- forward way is to consider various scenarios for which of the two sentences would have different truth values. We think that this strategy can be employed… however, the strategy is fairly involved and we will try to bypass it here. – Fox and Nissenbaum (2004)

26. referentiality and linguistic judgment acceptability judgments are quick and easy, but it is difficult to control the availability of the context that the participant creates an experimental scenario allows the researcher to create the context (so it is available and consistent across speakers), and then obtain a judgment

27. outline theoretical background Prin A- binding reconstruction referentiality referentiality and reconstructio n claims open questions experiment goals previous research design results discussion and conclusions

28. experiment overview we want to determine whether the prohibition of non- reconstructed readings with non-referential interpretations is a result of the grammar therefore, we need to test creation/non-creation verbs (which reflect referential/non-referential readings) with reflexives (so we can determine whether reconstruction has occurred) to determine the range of allowed interpretations

29. experiment overview we will do this in an experimental scenario that makes both the referential and non-referential interpretations equally available Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at

30. experiment overview our experiment tests the referentiality contrast, using pairs of sentences, as below the experimental context provides two possible antecedents for the reflexives to test reconstruction referential, non-creation verb Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at non-referential, creation verb Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex needed to draw

31. the issue we want to know if referentiality affects reconstruction in the grammar or, if the judgment is due to failure to construe a possible semantics therefore, we need to test in a scenario where both interpretations are possible

32. desiderata of experimental design need to make sure we can tell the difference between the two readings (reconstructed and non-reconstructed) cannot ask participants for explicit judgments about high/low interpretations, as to avoid meta-linguistic effects

33. features of experimental design we will ask the participants to answer the target question referential, non-creation verb Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at. Do you know how many? in a context where the numerical answer directly reveals interpretation this avoids meta-linguistic judgments task also alleviates burden associated with creating context

34. picture gallery task there are two pictures of Tom in the gallery and three pictures of Alex this sets up the unique numerical answer, and the referential interpretation of the reflexive the art gallery should be full, so Tom needs three more and Alex needs two more this sets up the non-referential interpretation

35. picture gallery task Tom has work to do, but needs to know how the art gallery is doing this sets up the need for Tom to wonder Alex is sent to find out

36. picture gallery task Alex loves the pictures in the gallery and counts what is needed this sets up the different numbers for referential and non-referential Alex doesn’t like the pictures that are outside contrast set for referential condition

37. target conditions referential condition Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at. Do you know? non-referential condition Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex needed to draw. Do you know?

38. target conditions referential condition Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at. Do you know? HIGH: 2LOW: 3 non-referential condition Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex needed to draw. Do you know? HIGH: 3LOW: 2

39. features of experimental design the participant’s answer reveals interpretation of the reflexive referential, non-creation verb Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at. Do you know how many? because the reflexive must be locally bound, this is a direct indication of reconstruction task allows us to obtain a judgment in a way that is easy for the participant

40. predictions grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis In referential condition, either reading is permitted In non-referential condition, only low reading available either reading permitted in both conditions (no difference between conditions ) referentiality in grammarreferentiality about context

41. ambiguity resolution because we are looking at ambiguity, we need to know what interpretations to expect to make explicit predictions evidence from offline experiments shows that adults prefer the high interpretation when available (Leddon 2006)

42. Leddon 2006 TVJT – Only using argument (referential) wh-phrases – Contexts license both high and low readings

43. Leddon 2006 When both interpretations are true in the context… Adults prefer the high reading over 90% of the time

44. predictions grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis In referential condition, either reading is permitted In non-referential condition, only low reading available either reading permitted in both conditions (no difference between conditions ) referentiality in grammarreferentiality about context

45. predictions grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis referential: Non-ref: > 50% % high readings < 50% > 50%

46. predictions grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis referential: Non-ref: % high readings differentsame

47. Experiment design 3 warm up items 2 referential target items 2 non-ref target items 2 control items Pseudo-random order 3 warm up items 2 referential target items 2 non-ref target items 2 control items Pseudo-random order Counterbalanced across participants Version OneVersion Two

48. control conditions non-referential control Tom wondered how many drawings of Alex were needed at the gallery. Do you know? 2 referential control Tom wondered how many drawings of Alex were in the gallery. Do you know? 3

49. counterbalanced measures order of presentation number associated with high and low readings side characters appeared on

50. participants 21 adults native English speakers divided evenly between versions

51. predictions grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis referential: Non-ref: > 50% % high readings < 50% > 50% differentsame

52. experiment results controls: 93% correct both conditions significantly above chance (p<.0001) not different from each other (p> 0.1)

53. predictions grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis referential: Non-ref: > 50% % high readings < 50% > 50% differentsame

54. outline theoretical background Prin A- binding reconstruction referentiality referentiality and reconstructio n claims open questions experiment goals previous research design results discussion and conclusions

55. discussion no difference in high readings between conditions, both above chance recall the predictions: grammatical hypothesis: only low reading in non- referential condition context hypothesis: ambiguous in both conditions therefore, it does not appear that referentiality grammatically constrains interpretation

56. alternative interpretation? non-referential condition Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex needed to draw. Not in actual existence virtual (if not actual) existence may be sufficient for existential presupposition (sportiche 2006)

57. grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis context hypothesis string meaning 1meaning 2 ✘ grammar context string meaning 1 meaning 2 ✘ ✘ string

58. acceptability judgments meta-linguistic inferences contextual information construction of a mental model parser grammar acceptability judgments are not directly reflective of the grammar!

59. acceptability judgments grammatical hypothesis context hypothesis context hypothesis ultimately, we must ask this question of every factor that influences acceptability judgments as a way to identify which factors the grammar references

60. acknowledgments thanks to members of the CNL lab at the University of Maryland for their comments and suggestions!

61. Experimental study on reconstruction and binding Leddon 2006; Leddon & Lidz 2006 Argument-fronting vs. predicate fronting in adults (and children) in Truth Value Judgment Task Argument-fronting (both high & low ): Miss Cruella knew which picture of herself Janie put up. Predicate-fronting (high, low ): Mr. Whale knew how happy with himself Mr. Walrus was.

62. When only one of the interpretations is true in the context… Both high & low readings accepted for argument wh Only low readings accepted for predicate wh Leddon 2006

63. previous research on processing Omaki et al. (2007): On-line preference for high- reading (cf. Frazier et al. 1996)