Binding Theory and language processing: How great a divide?

Abstract:

Two self-paced phrase-by-phrase readingexperiments investigated how comprehenders resolve coreference for the anaphors himself, herself, and themselves.  The research investigated the viability of extending the principles of Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981) to embody a theory of processing (see Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Badeker & Straub, 2001).  In terms of processing reflexives, such an extension predicts that only those antecedents in a c-command relationship with the reflexive would be activated during the resolution of coreference.  Consequently, characteristics of a non c-commanding nominal would be predicted not to influence the resolution of coreference.  The results of the present research indicated that characteristics of non c-commanding nominals can influence the resolution of coreference for reflexives.

In Experiment 1, the intended antecedent was preceded by a possessive nominal that either matched or mismatched in terms of gender.  The possessive does not c-command the reflexive; therefore, the possessive is not a possible antecedent.  Sample sentences are presented in (1).  In Experiment 2, the antecedent and a preceding possessive either matched or mismatched in terms of number.  Sample sentences are presented in (2).  The results of both experiments indicate that comprehenders are influenced by characteristics of the possessive nominal when resolving coreference for the reflexive.

Specifically, in Experiment 1, (1d) took significantly longer to process than (1a-c); in Experiment 2, (2d) took longer to process than (2a-c).  These results suggest that the markedness of the feature, gender or number plays a role in the process of coreference resolution.  When the gender or number of the possessive nominal is marked (female, or plural), a mismatch between this feature and the feature of the reflexive (and the intended antecedent) leads to processing difficulty.  When the gender or number of the possessive nominal is unmarked (masculine, or singular), a mismatch between this feature and the feature of the reflexive (and the intended antecedent) does not lead to processing difficulty.

References

Badeker, W., & Straub, K. (2001).  The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors.  Unpublished manuscript.

Chomsky, N. (1981).  Lectures on Government and Binding.  Dordrecht: Foris.

Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989).  The role of structure I coreference assignment during sentence comprehension.  Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5-19.