|
Abstract:
In this research, we use anaphor resolution to
explore the mental representation of singular and plural entities
during language processing.
Albrecht & Clifton (1998) reported processing
difficulty when a singular pronoun refers to an antecedent
embedded inside a conjoined noun phrase (as in 1):
|
(1)
|
|
John and Mary painted the
room. He really liked the colour.
|
Albrecht & Clifton offer a syntax-based
account: the conjunction cost is due to the difficulty of
splitting apart the conjoined constituent at a syntactic level,
in order to access one of the conjuncts. According to an
alternative scenario-based account (Sanford & Moxey, 1995),
the conjunction cost arises in (1) because of the difficulty of
individuating the discourse roles of John and Mary in the
scenario. Notice that both of these accounts predict
difficulty for singular pronouns where the intended referent is
individuated in some way from an alternative (either in syntax or
in discourse). These accounts may also be extended to make
the opposite prediction for plural pronouns, where processing
should be facilitated when two intended referents are not
individuated.
To explore these issues, participants'
eye-movements were monitored while they read short passages like
(2):
|
(2)
|
a.
|
John and Mary painted the
room. He/They really liked the colour.
|
|
|
b.
|
John painted the room with
Mary. He/They really liked the colour.
|
|
|
c.
|
John painted the room for
Mary. He/They really liked the colour.
|
In (2a), John and Mary appear in a single
conjoined constituent, while in (2b) and (2c) they are split into
two constituents. Thus, the syntax-based account predicts
that a singular pronoun should be hard to process in (2a), but
easier in (2b) and (2c).
In (2a) and (2b), John and Mary are both "agents"
of painting (and are thus similar in their discourse roles),
while in (2c), John and Mary have different roles. Thus,
the scenario-based account predicts difficulty for singular
reference in (2a) and (2b) in comparison with (2c). The
reverse predictions hold for plural pronouns for both
models.
The pattern of results suggests that both accounts
are correct; for the singular conditions, first-pass reading
times in the adverb region ("really") were longer for (2a) than
(2b), and longer for (2b) than (2c) (though only the contrast
between (2a) and (2c) reached significance). For the plural
conditions, first-pass reading times were longer in the final
region ("the colour") for (2c) than (2b), and longer for (2b)
than (2a) (though again, only the contrast between (2a) and (2c)
reached significance). Similar results were found for
regression-path and right-bounded reading times. The
difference in the location of this effect (adverb vs. end of
sentence) suggests that plural reference is delayed compared with
singular reference.
A follow-up experiment is currently being run
using pronouns in object position.
|
