Advertisement

Alternatives on Demand and Locality: Resolving Discourse-Linked Wh-Phrases in Sluiced Structures

  • Jesse A. HarrisEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)

Abstract

Previous studies have observed a tendency to associate the remnant (e.g., who) of ambiguous sluicing ellipsis with the closest/most local correlate (someone) in the matrix clause, as in Somebody said Fred fired someone, but I don’t know who. I present the results of three experiments investigating the interplay between locality and the discourse status of potential correlates. The studies exploit the discourse-linking property of which-phrases in ambiguous sluiced sentences, like A teacher scolded Max or Dotty, but I can’t remember which one, to explore whether the preference for more local correlates is modulated by the discourse status of the potential correlates. I propose a discourse economy constraint (Alternatives on Demand: Avoid positing new discourse alternatives without evidence), which interacts with structural constraints like locality. Evidence from several questionnaire studies, as well as three online self-paced reading studies, supports the predictions of a sentence processing model in which the discourse status of items in memory immediately impacts the retrieval of a correlate for the remnant of sluicing ellipsis and related constructions. In addition, the time point at which the interaction between processing biases appears is shown to depend on the strength or diagnosticity of the retrieval cues in which-phrase.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Although a simple “thank you” fails to convey the gratitude I feel towards Lyn Frazier for years of mentorship and support, it will have to do. I also thank Joel Fishbein for administering Experiments 2 and 3. I am indebted to Chuck Clifton and Lyn Frazier for discussion on methodology and interpretation, to the UCSC Department of Linguistics for feedback during a colloquium talk, to participants at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing held at Riva del Garda, Italy, participants in the UCLA Psycholinguistics Seminar, the 26th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference hosted by the University of South Carolina, and to the audience at LynSchrift 2018, where portions of this work were previously presented. I thank UCLA and Pomona College for financial support. Any errors are naturally my own.

References

  1. AnderBois, S. (2014). The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions. Language, 90, 887–926.  https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: the role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, 187–203.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00193.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barros, M. (2014). Sluicing and identity in ellipsis. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  7. Barros, M., & Vicente, L. (2016). A remnant condition for ellipsis. Proceedings of WCCFL, 33, 57–66.Google Scholar
  8. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2009). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-31.Google Scholar
  9. Beaver, D., & Clark, B. Z. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson, K. (2002). Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. Routledge, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  11. Carlson, K., Dickey, M. W., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2009). Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 114–139.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701880171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 239–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01248819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 239–297.Google Scholar
  14. Cloitre, M., & Bever, T. G. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 293–322.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968808402092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dayal, V., & Schwarzschild, R. (1988). Definite inner antecedents and wh-correlates in sluices. Rutgers Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 92–114.Google Scholar
  16. Dickey, M. W., & Bunger, A. C. (2011). Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 63–78.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003691074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon, W. J. (1960). Simplified estimation from censored normal samples. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 31, 385–391.  https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 499–520.  https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2002). Processing “d-linked” phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 633–659.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021269122049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8, 121–174.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frazier, L., Plunkett, B., & Clifton, C. (1996). Reconstruction and scope. In: M. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 19, 239–260).Google Scholar
  23. Frazier, L., Carlson, K., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 244–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., Ehrlich, M. F., & Carreiras, M. (1995). Representations and processes in the interpretation of pronouns: New evidence from Spanish and French. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 41–62.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene, S. B., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 266–283.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.2.266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haegeman, L., Meinunger, A., & Vercauteren, A. (2015). The syntax of it-clefts and the left periphery of the clause. In U. Shlonsky (Ed.), Beyond functional sequence: The cartography of syntactic structures, (Vol. 10, pp. 73–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, J. A. (2015). Structure modulates similarity-based interference in sluicing: An eye tracking study. Frontiers of Psychology, 6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01839.
  28. Harris, J. A., & Carlson, K. (2016). Keep it local (and final): Remnant preferences in ‘let alone’ ellipsis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Linguistics, 69, 1278–1301.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1062526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harris, J. A., & Carlson, J. (2018). Information structure preferences in focus-sensitive ellipsis: How defaults persist. Language & Speech, 61, 480–512.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830917737110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order. Cognition, 94, 113–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, C. S., Gunlogson, C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Runner, J. T. (2015). Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives. Cognition, 139, 28–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klin, C. M., Guzmán, A. E., Weingartner, K. M., & Ralano, A. S. (2006). When anaphor resolution fails: Partial encoding of anaphoric inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 131–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koh, S., & Clifton, C. (2002). Resolution of the antecedent of a plural pronoun: Ontological categories and predicate symmetry. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 830–844.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp. 1–25).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levine, W. H., Guzmán, A. E., & Klin, C. M. (2000). When anaphor resolution fails. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 594–617.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin, A. E. (2010). Memory operations and structures in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ellipsis. Ph.D. thesis, New York University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879–906.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2011). Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 327–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Merchant, J. (1998). ‘Pseudosluicing’: Elliptical clefts in Japanese and English. ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics10, 88–112.Google Scholar
  42. Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland, & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness (pp. 98–129). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Poirier, J., Wolfinger, K., Spellman, L., & Shapiro, L. P. (2010). The real-time processing of sluiced sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 411–427.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9148-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
  46. Romero, M. (1998). Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Ph.D. thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  47. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  48. Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who. In R. Binnick et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL (pp. 252–286).  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.003.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 341–370.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stewart, A. J., Holler, J., & Kidd, E. (2007). Shallow processing of ambiguous pronouns: Evidence for delay. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1680–1696.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601160807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tukey, J. W. (1962). The future of data analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 1–67.  https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177704711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Craenenbroeck, J. (2010). The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Van Dyke, J. A., & Johns, C. L. (2012). Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vicente, L. (to appear). Sluicing and its subtypes. In T. Temmerman & J. van Craenenbroeck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1975). Build-up of proactive inhibition as a cue overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 442–452.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.1.4.442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolter, L., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011). Scalar reference, contrast and discourse: Separating effects of linguistic discourse from availability of the referent. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 299–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations