| |
Abstract:
It has long been claimed that modifier phrases
serve the discourse function of distinguishing between multiple
discourse referents identified by the head noun, and that
discourse context effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution
reflect this knowledge (Crain & Steedman, 1985). More
recent work has observed discourse context effects on resolving
temporary referential indeterminacies of prenominal adjectives
(Sedivy et al., 1999). However, this discourse function may
be not a general linguistic property of modification, but rather,
an indirect one reflecting expectations of optimal informativity
of linguistic expressions with respect to referent
identification.
Sedivy (2001) provided evidence for this view by
showing that the presence of a discourse-available contrasting
object exerted an effect on the on-line processing of referential
expressions containing prenominal adjectives only when the
adjective denoted a property that was typically unlikely to be
produced in describing the target object in isolation (e.g.,
material and scalar properties). For properties that are
frequently redundantly encoded (e.g., with color adjectives), no
such effect of discourse contrast was observed.
The current paper presents further evidence that
default expectations pertaining to the amount of information
provided in referring to an object impact on-line language
processing in discourse contexts. Experiment 1 shows that
discourse contrast effects are also observed with unmodified bare
nouns that are more specific than typical descriptions for an
object (i.e., subordinate-level expressions such as pump, rather
than shoe). Eye movements to a visual display in response
to spoken instructions such as "Click on the pump" showed fewer
eye movements to a lexical cohort competitor (e.g., "pumpkin")
shortly after the onset of the critical noun when a contrasting
object of the same basic-level category as the target (e.g.,
sneaker) was present in the display than when it was not.
In addition, eye movements to the contrasting object after target
identification were dramatically more frequent than the baseline
(for unrelated distractor items), suggesting that subjects took
this object to be relevant for the interpretation of the
instructions. The fixations to the target object were both
much more frequent, and occurred substantially later than the
fixations that have been observed for objects that stand is some
general semantic relationship to target words (see Yee &
Sedivy, 2001).
Experiments 2 and 3 were designed to determine
more conclusively whether previous findings that color adjectives
don't exhibit discourse contrast effects can be attributed to
informativity expectations, rather a generalization about the
lexical class of color adjectives. An elicited production
study determined that color adjectives are rarely used to
describe objects when their color is predictable from the
category of the object (e.g., yellow banana). Hence, it was
predicted that in a comprehension task, instructions containing a
color adjective for such objects would be more informative than
would be typically expected. Therefore, in the presence of
a contrasting object (e.g., a green banana), the use of the color
adjective should trigger the inference that "yellow" is used to
distinguish between the target and contrasting objects (yellow
vs. green bananas) rather than referring to some other yellow
object in the display. Preliminary eye movement data
suggest that this is indeed the case, providing further evidence
for sensitivity to informational expectations.
References
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not
being led up the garden path: The use of context by the
psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunnen, & A. Zwicky
(Eds.), Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sedivy, J. (2001). Evidence for Gricean
mechanisms in on-line language processing. Paper presented
at the 14th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
Philadelphia, PA.
Sedivy, J., Tanenhaus, M., Chambers, C., &
Carlson, G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic
interpretation through contextual representation.
Cognition, 71, 109-147.
Yee, E., & Sedivy, J. (2001). Using eye
movements to study the time-course of semantic priming in lexical
access. Paper presented at the 14th annual CUNY Conference
on Human Sentence Processing. Philadelphia, PA.
|