Retrieval Interference in Syntactic Processing: The Case of Reflexive Binding in English

It has been proposed that in online sentence comprehension the dependency between a reflexive pronoun such as himself/herself and its antecedent is resolved using exclusively syntactic constraints. Under this strictly syntactic search account, Principle A of the binding theory—which requires that the antecedent c-command the reflexive within the same clause that the reflexive occurs in—constrains the parser's search for an antecedent. The parser thus ignores candidate antecedents that might match agreement features of the reflexive (e.g., gender) but are ineligible as potential antecedents because they are in structurally illicit positions. An alternative possibility accords no special status to structural constraints: in addition to using Principle A, the parser also uses non-structural cues such as gender to access the antecedent. According to cue-based retrieval theories of memory (e.g., Lewis and Vasishth, 2005), the use of non-structural cues should result in increased retrieval times and occasional errors when candidates partially match the cues, even if the candidates are in structurally illicit positions. In this paper, we first show how the retrieval processes that underlie the reflexive binding are naturally realized in the Lewis and Vasishth (2005) model. We present the predictions of the model under the assumption that both structural and non-structural cues are used during retrieval, and provide a critical analysis of previous empirical studies that failed to find evidence for the use of non-structural cues, suggesting that these failures may be Type II errors. We use this analysis and the results of further modeling to motivate a new empirical design that we use in an eye tracking study. The results of this study confirm the key predictions of the model concerning the use of non-structural cues, and are inconsistent with the strictly syntactic search account. These results present a challenge for theories advocating the infallibility of the human parser in the case of reflexive resolution, and provide support for the inclusion of agreement features such as gender in the set of retrieval cues.

[1]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[2]  B. McElree,et al.  Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. , 2011 .

[3]  Harald Clahsen,et al.  Children's Processing of Reflexives and Pronouns in English: Evidence from Eye-movements During Listening , 2011 .

[4]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Argument-Head Distance and Processing Complexity: Explaining both Locality and Antilocality Effects , 2006 .

[5]  Ian Cunnings,et al.  Coargumenthood and the processing of reflexives , 2014 .

[6]  P. Gordon,et al.  Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  C. Phillips,et al.  Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence , 2009, Brain and Language.

[8]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  A formal model of capacity limits in working memory , 2006 .

[9]  P. Gordon,et al.  Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity , 2004 .

[10]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[11]  D Swinney,et al.  The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[12]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements in reading words and sentences , 2007 .

[13]  W. Badecker,et al.  The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  C. Thompson,et al.  Binding in agrammatic aphasia: Processing to comprehension , 2010, Aphasiology.

[15]  B McElree,et al.  Sentence Comprehension Is Mediated by Content-Addressable Memory Structures , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[16]  P. Sturt,et al.  The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution , 2003 .

[17]  Ian Cunnings,et al.  Coargumenthood and the processing of pronouns , 2018 .

[18]  Martin A. Conway,et al.  Memory and Language Memory and the self q , 2005 .

[19]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  Agreement Attraction in Comprehension: Representations and Processes. , 2009 .

[20]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  J. V. Van Dyke.  Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[22]  Stephani Foraker,et al.  Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension , 2003 .

[23]  Colin Phillips,et al.  Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[24]  Alfred V. Aho,et al.  The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling , 1972 .

[25]  Simon Garrod,et al.  Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements , 2008 .

[26]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  C. Felser,et al.  The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives , 2013 .

[28]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention , 2003, Vision Research.

[29]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Processing Polarity: How the Ungrammatical Intrudes on the Grammatical , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Colin Phillips,et al.  5: Grammatical Illusions and Selective Fallibility in Real-Time Language Comprehension , 2011 .

[31]  Zhong Chen,et al.  How structure-sensitive is the parser? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese , 2012 .

[32]  Jeffrey T. Runner,et al.  What Can Visual World Eye-tracking Tell Us about the Binding Theory ? , 2014 .

[33]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[34]  Jeffrey Witzel,et al.  Binding Accessibility and Online Anaphora Processing , 2012 .

[35]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[36]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Processing Reflexives and Pronouns in Picture Noun Phrase , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[37]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Retrieval interference in reflexive processing , 2015 .

[38]  J. S. Nairne.  A feature model of immediate memory , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[39]  C. Thompson,et al.  Pronominal Resolution and Gap Filling in Agrammatic Aphasia: Evidence from Eye Movements , 2009, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[40]  P. Gordon,et al.  Memory interference during language processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  Patrick Sturt,et al.  The processing of raising and nominal control: an eye-tracking study , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[42]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. , 2013, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[43]  Pedro Alcocer,et al.  Using Relational Syntactic Constraints in Content-Addressable Memory Architectures for Sentence Parsing , 2012 .

[44]  Brian Dillon,et al.  Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence , 2013 .

[45]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors , 2015, Front. Psychol..