Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or Gricean maxims?

Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or Gricean maxims? Barbara Hemforth (barbara.hemforth@parisdescartes.fr) Laboratoire de Psychologie et de Neuropsychologie Cognitives, CNRS, Universite Paris Descartes, 71 ave Edouard Vaillant, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France Lars Konieczny (lars@cognition.uni-freiburg.de) Center for Cognitive Science, University of Freiburg, Friedrichstr. 50, 79098 Freiburg, Germany Christoph Scheepers (c.scheepers@psy.gla.ac.uk) Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, Scotland Saveria Colonna (Saveria.Colonna@univ-paris8.fr) Laboratoire Structure Formelles du Langage, CNRS, Universite Paris 8, 59-61 rue Pouchet, 75849 Paris Cedex 17 Sarah Schimke (sarah.schimke@sfl.cnrs.fr) Laboratoire Structure Formelles du Langage, CNRS, Universite Paris 8, 59-61 rue Pouchet, 75849 Paris Cedex 17 Peter Baumann (p.bau@web.de) Center for Cognitive Science, University of Freiburg, Friedrichstr. 50, 79098 Freiburg, Germany Joel Pynte (joel.pynte@parisdescartes.fr) Laboratoire de Psychologie et de Neuropsychologie Cognitives, CNRS, Universite Paris Descartes, 71 ave Edouard Vaillant, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France Abstract In this paper we will present evidence for language specific preferences in anaphor resolution from two series of experiments in English, German, and French. For within sentence anaphor resolution with “before” subclauses, we will show that English and German follow the generally assumed preference for the first mentioned NP or subject of the sentence, whereas French shows a clear preference for the object of the matrix clause. We will argue that our data can most easily be explained by a usage-based account, linking comprehension preferences to production preferences. Keywords: Sentence processing; anaphor resolution; crosslinguistic differences; usage-based preferences Introduction It has been shown for many languages that the resolution of non-reflexive pronouns is strongly influenced by pragmatic factors such as topicality (in the sentence or in the discourse; Givon, 1983), the chain of causality, and other kinds of discourse relations (e.g. Kehler, 2002; Sanders & Noordman, 2000). On the sentence level, two of the factors that seem to play a role are a preference for the first mentioned antecedent (Gernsbacher, 1990), and a preference for the subject (Jaervikivi, van Gompel, Hyona, & Bertram, 2005). These preferences are assumed to be valid across languages so that for subject-verb-object sentences like (1) a preference for the first noun phrase would generally be predicted, given that it is mentioned first and the subject at the same time. English: The postman met the streetsweeper before he went home. French: Le facteur a rencontre le balayeur avant qu'il rentre a la maison. German: Der Brieftrager hat den Strassenfeger getroffen bevor er nach Hause ging. More language specific predictions can be derived from accounts based on the availability of alternative constructions in the grammar of a particular language. According to the Gricean Maxim of Manner (Clarity), speakers should avoid ambiguous constructions in choosing unambiguous alternatives if they exist. If for an ambiguous construction an unambigous alternative exists for one of the readings, listeners may thus assume that the speaker would have chosen this alternative for the respective reading. From this reasoning, a preference for the reading without an unambiguous alternative will result for the ambiguous construction. In this paper, we will compare closely matched constructions in English, French, and German (see examples 2-5) to investigate cross-linguistic differences in pronoun resolution. What makes the comparison of these languages particularly interesting, is the distribution of alternative constructions for the different interpretations of an ambiguous sentence like (1): In French, a highly frequent construction exists for binding an anaphoric pronoun to the subject of the matrix clause (2) which does not exist for German.