The Role of Verification Strategies: in Semantic Ambiguity Resolution in Children and Adults

Title of dissertation: THE ROLE OF VERIFICATION STRATEGIES IN SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION IN CHILDREN AND ADULTS Anastasia Marie Conroy Doctor of Philosophy, 2008 Dissertation directed by: Associate Professor Jeffrey Lidz Department of Linguistics This dissertation investigates the contributions of the parser and extra-linguistic information in the selection of a final interpretation of scopally ambiguous strings, integrating data from both children and adults into our understanding of language processing. Previous research has found an advantage for surface scope interpretations in adult sentence processing (Tunstall, 1998; Anderson, 2003) and in children’s interpretive preferences (Musolino et al., 2000; Musolino and Lidz, 2006). In light of these findings, we investigate two central questions. One, what is the source of the advantage for surface scope interpretations in adults? Two, what factors contribute to children’s ultimate adherence to surface scope interpretations? With respect to the first question, we show that the source of the advantage for surface scope interpretations cannot be described by a parsing preference, but can be described by the ease of the verification strategy utilized for the surface scope interpretation. With respect to the second question, we investigate children’s interpretations of scopally ambiguous strings across a range of ages and find that while children appear fixed to surface scope interpretations during a limited window of development, this fixation does not hold at the earliest stage of development, demonstrating a U-shaped curve of development. Additionally, we find evidence that children’s interpretations do not vary as a function of task in an adult-like way, and suggest that these findings must be explained by a combination of children’s developing parsers and ability to integrate discourse information. We suggest that the non-adult-like interpretations observed in children derive from an initial parser bias for inverse scope interpretations, followed by a period in which children have adult-like parsers, but lack the the ability to integrate discourse information as a means to inform the process of ambiguity resolution. The Role of Verification Strategies in Semantic Ambiguity Resolution in Children and Adults by Anastasia Marie Conroy Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 Advisory Committee: Associate Professor Jeffrey Lidz, Chair Professor Norbert Hornstein Professor Paul Pietroski Associate Professor Amy Weinberg Professor Fred Eckman

[1]  Christopher Kennedy,et al.  Structural economy in the processing and representation Of gapping sentences , 2005 .

[2]  M. D’Esposito Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[3]  Alan B. Welsh,et al.  Acoustic masking in primary memory. , 1976 .

[4]  Janet Dean Fodor Psycholinguistics Cannot Escape Prosody , 2002 .

[5]  Allison Blodgett,et al.  Understanding the Constraints on Syntactic Generation: Lexical Bias and Discourse Congruency Effects on Eye Movements , 2001 .

[6]  Norbert Hornstein,et al.  Logical Form: From Gb to Minimalism , 1995 .

[7]  Don L. Scarborough,et al.  Frequency and Repetition Effects in Lexical Memory. , 1977 .

[8]  J. Simmer-Brown,et al.  The Question is the Answer , 2009 .

[9]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The syntactic process , 2004, Language, speech, and communication.

[10]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music , 1988 .

[11]  I. Noveck When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature , 2001, Cognition.

[12]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension , 2005, Cognition.

[13]  Julien Musolino,et al.  On the Quantificational Status of Indefinites: The View From Child Language , 2006 .

[14]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  Ambiguity in context , 1989 .

[15]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On not being led up the garden path : The use of context by the psychological syntax processor , 1985 .

[16]  J. Trueswell,et al.  Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension , 2005, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[17]  Susanne Lynn Tunstall,et al.  The interpretation of quantifiers : semantics & processing , 1998 .

[18]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  G. Waters,et al.  Working memory and written sentence comprehension , 1987 .

[20]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.

[21]  R. Brown,et al.  A First Language , 1973 .

[22]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[23]  Andrea Gualmini,et al.  Some knowledge children don't lack , 2004 .

[24]  William K. Estes,et al.  Phonemic Coding and Rehearsal in Short-Term Memory for Letter Strings. , 1973 .

[25]  M. Just,et al.  Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  Giuseppe Vallar,et al.  Sentence comprehension and phonological memory: Some neuropsychological evidence. , 1987 .

[27]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[28]  Mats Wirén,et al.  Syntactic Parsing , 2010, Handbook of Natural Language Processing.

[29]  Filippo Beghelli,et al.  THE PHRASE STRUCTURE OF QUANTIFIER SCOPE , 1995 .

[30]  Katy Carlson,et al.  Parallelism and Prosody in the Processing of Ellipsis Sentences , 2002 .

[31]  N. Cowan An embedded-processes model of working memory , 1999 .

[32]  J. Musolino,et al.  Children's command of quantification , 2002, Cognition.

[33]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities , 1993, Cognition.

[34]  McMahon Jeffrey,et al.  Quantifier Raising in 4-year-olds , 2004 .

[35]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[36]  J. Trueswell THE ROLE OF LEXICAL FREQUENCY IN SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION , 1996 .

[37]  J. Bransford,et al.  Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach ☆ ☆☆ , 1972 .

[38]  T. Reinhart,et al.  The innateness of binding and coreference , 1993 .

[39]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[40]  M. Just,et al.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory , 1991 .

[41]  J. Kimball Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

[42]  Kosta Dosen,et al.  Models of Deduction* , 2006, Synthese.

[43]  Jane K. Hook Beyond the Surface , 2001 .

[44]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Navigating negative quantificational space , 2000 .

[45]  M. Pickering,et al.  Search Strategies in Syntactic Reanalysis , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[46]  Eleanor M. Saffran,et al.  Immediate memory for word lists and sentences in a patient with deficient auditory short-term memory , 1975, Brain and Language.

[47]  Richard A. Griggs,et al.  The elusive thematic‐materials effect in Wason's selection task , 1982 .

[48]  An Experimental Investigation of Referential/nonreferential Asymmetries in Syntactic Reconstruction , 2008 .

[49]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  Why children aren't universally successful with quantification , 2006 .

[50]  R. Thornton,et al.  Principle B, VP Ellipsis, and Interpretation in Child Grammar , 1999 .

[51]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content , 1972 .