MisalignmentofofflineandonlinemeasuresinRussianrelativeclause

processing

IyaKhelmPrice&JeffreyWitzel

UniversityofTexasatArlington

• Sentencecomprehensionisthecomputationofmeaning.

• Howdoesthemanipulationofsymbols(words,morphemes,phrases)producemeaningfulinterpretationsinourminds?

• Arethementalgrammarandlanguageprocessingpartsofthesamesystem?

Responsetypes

Onlineresponses:• usetime-sensitivemeasures• usuallyasthestructureunfolds• complementedbyaccuracyoncomprehensionquestionspresentedafter

thesentencedisappears

Offlineresponses:• judgmentsmadewithnotimelimits• usuallyafterthefullstructureispresented

Onlinevs.offlineresponses

• Whatstagesofcomputationdotheseofflineandonlineresponsesreflect?

• Onlineresponsesshowintermediatestepsinbuilding grammaticalrepresentations,offline judgments reflectdifferentstagesofcomputation inthesamesystem(Lewis&Phillips, 2015;Phillips&Lewis,2013).

• Attemptstoestablishhowgrammarandlanguageprocessingcouldbepartof thesamecognitivesystemhavecalledforcomparisonsofofflineandonline responsestothesameinput.

Thepresentstudy

• investigatedhowonlineandofflineresponsescomplementeachotherbyexaminingtheprocessingofRussianrelativeclauses(RCs)with

- offlinemeasures:acceptabilityjudgmenttaskcomplementedbyacorpusanalysis

- onlinemeasures:2self-pacedreadingexperimentscomplementedbyacomprehensionquestionaccuracymeasure

The housewife, who upset the old lady, lay on the couch in the living room.

1(completelyunacceptable) - 2(not fullyacceptable) -3(somewhatacceptable)- 4(acceptable)- 5(completelyacceptable)

Offlinemeasures(score1-5):AcceptabilityJudgment

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

7

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

Housewife, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

8

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

-----------who.nom --------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

9

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

-------------------after walk ---------------------------------------------------------------------.

10

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

------------------------------old_lady.acc --------------------------------------------------------.

11

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

-------------------------------------------really -------------------------------------------------.

12

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

--------------------------------------------------upset -------------------------------------------.

13

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

---------------------------------------------------------with_her story,---------------------------.

14

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

------------------------------------------------------------------------lay------------------------.

15

Onlinemeasures(inms):Self-pacedreading

----------------------------------------------------------------------------on couch in living_room.

16

Onlinemeasures:Comprehensionquestion

Did the housewife upset the old lady with her story?

NO YES

17

Onlinemeasures:Comprehensionquestion

CORRECT

18

RelativeclauseprocessingStudiesonrelativeclauses(RCs)inanumberoflanguageshaveshownthatobject-extractedRCs(ORCs)aremoredifficulttoprocessthansubject-extractedRCs(SRCs).

Subject-extractedRC(SRC):a.Thereporter1[thatt1attackedthesenator]admittedtheerror.Object-extractedRC(ORC):b.Thereporter1[thatthesenatorattackedt1]admittedtheerror.

AnumberofstudieshaveshownthatORCsaremoredifficulttoprocessnotjustinEnglish,butalsoinotherlanguages,includingChinese,Dutch,Hungarian,Japaneseandothers(Staub,2010;Traxler etal.,2002;Traxler etal.,2005;MacWhinney &Pleh,1998;Mak etal.,2002;Lin&Bever,2006;Miyamoto&Nakamura,2003).

ModelsoftheSRC-ORCprocessingasymmetry:• Expectation-basedaccounts(Hale,2001;Levy,2008;Reali &Christiansen,

2007;MacDonald&Christiansen,2002)– NOMINALRCs(withadescriptiveNPinsidetheRC): ORCsMOREdifficultthanSRCs– PRONIMINALRCs(withapronouninsidetheRC): ORCsMOREdifficultthanSRCs

• Memory-basedaccounts(King&Just,1991;Gibson, 1998,2000;Gordonetal.,2001;Johnson etal.,2011)

– integrationcostsdependondistance,numberandtypesofNPstobeheldinworkingmemory,NPsimilarity

• Structure-basedaccounts(MacWhinney &Pleh,1998;Lin&Bever,2006;Clifton&Frazier,1989)

(Staub,2010;Levyetal.,2013)– acombinationofthesefactors

Relativeclauseprocessing

Thereporter1 [thatthesenatorattackedt1]admittedtheerror.Thereporter1 [thatyouattackedt1]admittedtheerror.

20

Thepresentstudy

• Inmanylanguages,wordorderdifferencesbetweenSRCsandORCsmakeitdifficulttotestamongtheseaccounts.

SRC:a.Thereporter1 [thatt1attacked thesenator]admittedtheerror.ORC:b.Thereporter1 [thatthesenator attacked t1]admittedtheerror.

• RussianallowsSRCsandORCstohavethesamelexicalmaterialinthesamelinearorder(withcase-markingdistinguishingbetweenRCtypes).

21

Thesentencesofinterest(seeHandout)

Thesentencesofinterest(seeHandout)

23

SRC

ORC

Thesentencesofinterest(seeHandout)

24

• anNPargument intervenedbetweenthemodified nounandtheRCverb:NP-O/S+V

Thesentencesofinterest(seeHandout)

25

• thesamenumberofNPargumentswasavailableforintegrationattheRCverb,acrossthesamelineardistance,inbothSRCsandORCs

Thesentencesofinterest(seeHandout)

26

• theinfluenceofstructuralexpectationswasinvestigatedbyusingdifferentNPtypes-- descriptiveNPsandpronouns -- insidetheembeddedclause

RussiancorpusanalysisPercentages of SRCs and ORCs with different word orders depending on

embedded NP type

RussiancorpusanalysisPercentages of SRCs and ORCs with different word orders depending on

embedded NP type

RussiancorpusanalysisPercentages of SRCs and ORCs with different word orders depending on

embedded NP type

RussiancorpusanalysisPercentages of SRCs and ORCs with different word orders depending on

embedded NP type

RussiancorpusanalysisPercentages of SRCs and ORCs with different word orders depending on

embedded NP type

Anofflineacceptabilityjudgmentstudy

Mean rating scores for RCs with different word orders inside the embedded clause

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

Mea

n ra

ting

scor

es

Anofflineacceptabilityjudgmentstudy

Mean rating scores for RCs with different word orders inside the embedded clause

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

Mea

n ra

ting

scor

es

Anofflineacceptabilityjudgmentstudy

Mean rating scores for RCs with different word orders inside the embedded clause

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

Mea

n ra

ting

scor

es

Anofflineacceptabilityjudgmentstudy

Mean rating scores for RCs with different word orders inside the embedded clause

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

Mea

n ra

ting

scor

es

Anofflineacceptabilityjudgmentstudy

Mean rating scores for RCs with different word orders inside the embedded clause

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

Mea

n ra

ting

scor

es

Corpusfrequenciesvs.Acceptabilityscores

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

Anofflineacceptabilityjudgmentstudy

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRCControl CC ORCControlCC

Default(SVO) Scrambled(OVS)

Mean rating scores for CCs with different word orders inside the embedded clause.

Mea

n ra

ting

scor

es

• Howdoestheofflinedatacorrespondtotheonlinemeasures?

Onlinevs. Offlinemeasures(NominalRCs)

• Someindicationsofonlineprocessingdifficultypatternedwiththeofflinemeasures,butothersdidnot.

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRCControl CC ORCControlCC

Default(SVO) Scrambled(OVS)

RCsentences- AcceptabilityJudgment CCcontrolsentences- AcceptabilityJudgment

OnlineSelf-pacedReadingExperiment1(NominalRCs)

Expectationeffects=>alignment

Memoryeffects=>misalignment

Onlinevs. Offlinemeasures(PronominalRCs)

• Someindicationsofonlineprocessingdifficultypatternedwiththeofflinemeasures,butothersdidnot.

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRCControl CC ORCControlCC

Default(SVO) Scrambled(OVS)

RCsentences- AcceptabilityJudgment CCcontrolsentences- AcceptabilityJudgment

OnlineSelf-pacedReadingExperiment2(PronominalRCs)

Expectationeffects=>alignment

Memoryeffects=>misalignment

Onlinevs. Offlinemeasures

Online= Offline=> alignmentForsentencesthatweredispreferredinofflinejudgmentsandlessfrequentinthecorpus,longerreadingtimeswererevealedatthefirstunexpectedword-- theembedded-clauseNP.

Online≠ Offline=> misalignmentTheRCvs.CCpatternofexpectationeffectsdoesnotcontinueonthroughoutthesentence.ComparableintegrationcostsforSRCsandORCsat/aftertheRCverbwhendistanceandthetypesofintegratedelementswereheldconstant.

• AlthoughORCswithdescriptiveNPswerejudgedofflineasmoreacceptablethanSRCs,andwerefoundtobemorefrequentinthecorpus…

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nominal Pronominal Nominal Pronominal

SRC ORC

Default(VO/SV) Scrambled(OV/VS)

Comprehensionquestionmeasure=>misalignment

RCsentences- AcceptabilityJudgment RCsentences- Corpus Analysis

Comprehensionquestionmeasure=>misalignment

• Late-stagecomprehensiondifficultywasrevealedfornominalORCsentencesinparticular

• Thissuggeststhatsimilarity-basedinterference(Gordonetal.,2001,2002,2004,2006),combinedwithORCstructuralprocessingdifficulty,alsoinfluencesprocessesrelatedtoretrievingandassigningthematicrolestoNPsduringRCprocessing.

Interpretationofresults

• Theseresultsthussuggestthat– intermediatestepsinonlinestructurebuildingrelatedtoexpectation-

based processingcorrespondtoofflinemeasures,– whereasonlineprocessingdisruptionsandcomprehensiondifficulty

thatappeartorelatetomemory demandsdonot.

• Onlinemeasuresreflectintermediatestagesofcomputationthatofflinemeasuresarenotabletoshow.

• Thesedifferencesbetweentheonlineandofflineresultsmightbetakentoreflectdifferentstagesofcomputationinasinglecognitivesystemforlanguageprocessing.

Thankyou!

48

ReferencesClifton, C.,Jr.,&Frazier,L.(1989).Comprehending sentenceswithlongdistancedependencies. InG.Carlson&M.Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguisticstructureinlanguage processing (pp.273–317).Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:Kluwer.Gordon, P.C.,Hendrick, R.,&Johnson, M.(2001).Memoryinterferenceduringlanguageprocessing.JournalofExperimentalPsychology: Learning,Memory,&Cognition, 27,1411–1423.Gordon, P.C.,Hendrick, R.,&Johnson, M. (2004). Effectsofnounphrasetypeonsentencecomplexity. Journal ofMemoryandLanguage,51,97-114.Gordon, P.C.,Hendrick, R.,Johnson, M.,&Lee,Y.(2006).Similarity-based interferenceduringlanguagecomprehension:Evidencefromeyetrackingduringreading.Journal ofExperimentalPsychology: Learning,Memory,andCognition,32(6), 1304-1321.Gordon, P.C.,Hendrick, R.,&Levine,W.H.(2002).Memory-loadinterferenceinsyntacticprocessing.Psychologicalscience,13(5),425-430.Forster,K.I.,&Forster,J.C.(2003).DMDX:AWindows displayprogramwithmillisecond accuracy.BehaviorResearchMethods,Instruments,&Computers, 35,116-124.Hale,J.(2001).Aprobabilistic earlyparserasapsycholinguistic model.In ProceedingsoftheNorthAmericanChapteroftheAssociation forComputational Linguistics, (pp.159–166).Pittsburgh,PA:Association forComputational Linguistics.Johnson, M.L.,Lowder,M.W.,&Gordon, P.C.(2011).Thesentencecomposition effect:Processingofcomplexsentencesdepends ontheconfigurationofcommonnounphrasesversus unusual nounphrases.Journal ofExperimentalPsychology:General,4, 707-724.Just,M.A.,Carpenter,P.A.,&Woolley, J.D.(1982).Paradigmsandprocesses inreadingcomprehension. JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,3,228–238.King,J.,&Just,M.A.(1991).Individual differencesinsyntacticprocessing: Theroleofworkingmemory.JournalofMemoryandLanguage, 30,580–602.

ReferencesLewis,S.&Phillips, C.(2015).Aligninggrammaticaltheoriesandlanguageprocessingmodels.JournalofPsycholinguisticResearch44.27–46.Levy,R.(2008).Expectation-based syntacticcomprehension.Cognition,106, 1126–1177.Levy,R.,Fedorenko, E.,&Gibson, E.(2013).Thesyntacticcomplexity ofRussian relativeclauses.JournalofMemoryandLanguage, 69, 461-495.Lin,C.C.,&Bever,T.G.(2006).Subjectpreferenceintheprocessing ofrelativeclauses inChinese.InWCCFL 25Proceedings,ed.D. Baumer,D.Montero,andM.Scanlon, pp.254-260.Somerville, MA:Cascadilla ProceedingsProject.MacWhinney, B.,&Pléh,C.(1998).Theprocessing ofrestrictiverelativeclausesinHungarian.Cognition, 29, 95–141.Mak,W.M.,Vonk, W.,&Schriefers,H.(2002).Theinfluenceofanimacyonrelativeclauseprocessing.Journal ofMemoryandLanguage, 47, 50-68.Miller,G.A.,&Chomsky, N.(1963).Finitary models oflanguageusers.InR.Duncan,R.Bush, andE.Galanter (Eds.),Handbook ofMathematicalPsychology, 419-492.NewYork:Wiley.Miyamoto,E.T.,&Nakamura,M.(2003).Subject/object asymmetriesintheprocessing ofrelativeclausesinJapanese.InWCCFL22Proceedings,ed.G.Garding andM.Tsujimura, pp.342-355.Somerville,MA:Cascadilla Press.Reali F.,&ChristiansenM.H.(2007).Processingofrelativeclausesismadeeasierbyfrequencyofoccurrence.JournalofMemoryandLanguage, 57,1–23.RussianNationalCorpus. (2003-2012).300millionwords.1800s-2000s. Availableonline athttp://www.ruscorpora.ruPhillips, C.&Lewis,S.(2013) Derivationalorderinsyntax:Evidenceandarchitecturalconsequences. StudiesinLinguistics6.11-47.Slabakova,R.(2008).Meaninginthesecondlanguage (Vol.34).WalterdeGruyter.Staub,A.(2010).Eyemovements andprocessing difficulty inobjectrelativeclauses.Cognition, 116,71–86.Traxler,M.J.,Morris, R.K.,&Seely,R.E.(2002).Processingsubject andobjectrelativeclauses:Evidencefromeyemovements.JournalofMemoryandLanguage, 47(1), 69-90.Taxler,M.J.,WilliamsR.S.,Blozis S.A.,&MorrisR.K.(2005).Workingmemory,animacy, andverbclassintheprocessingofrelativeclauses.JournalofMemoryandLanguage, 53,204-224.