Pronominal anaphora resolution in Polish: Investigating online sentence interpretation using eye-tracking

The mechanism of anaphora resolution is subject to large cross-linguistic differences. The most likely reason for this is the different sensitivity of pronouns to the range of factors that determine their reference. In the current study, we explored the mechanism of anaphora resolution in Polish. First, we explored preferences in the interpretation of null and overt pronouns in ambiguous sentences. More specifically, we investigated whether Polish speakers prefer to relate overt pronouns to subject or object antecedents. Subsequently, we tested the consequences of violating this bias when tracing the online sentence-interpretation process using eye-tracking. Our results show that Polish speakers have a strong preference for interpreting null pronouns as referring to subject antecedents and interpreting overt pronouns as referring to object antecedents. However, in online sentence interpretation, only overt pronouns showed sensitivity to a violation of the speaker’s preference for a pronoun-antecedent match. This suggests that null pronoun resolution is more flexible than overt pronoun resolution. Our results indicate that it is much easier for Polish speakers to shift the reference of a null pronoun than an overt one whenever a pronoun is forced to refer to a less-preferred antecedent. These results are supported by naturalness ratings, which showed that null pronouns are considered equally natural regardless of their reference, while overt pronouns referring to subject antecedents are rated as considerably less natural than those referring to object antecedents. To explain this effect, we propose that the interpretation of null and overt pronouns is sensitive to different factors which determine their reference.

Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension in aphasia: A computational evaluation of two models of cue-based retrieval

Sentence comprehension requires the listener to link incoming words with short-term memory representations in order to build linguistic dependencies. The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence processing predicts that the retrieval of these memory representations is affected by similarity-based interference. We present the first large-scale computational evaluation of interference effects in two models of sentence processing – the activation-based model, and a modification of the direct-access model – in individuals with aphasia (IWA) and control participants in German. The parameters of the models are linked to prominent theories of processing deficits in aphasia, and the models are tested against two linguistic constructions in German: Pronoun resolution and relative clauses. The data come from a visual-world eye-tracking experiment combined with a sentence-picture matching task. The results show that both control participants and IWA are susceptible to retrieval interference, and that a combination of theoretical explanations (intermittent deficiencies, slow syntax, and resource reduction) can explain IWA’s deficits in sentence processing. Model comparisons reveal that both models have a similar predictive performance in pronoun resolution, but the activation-based model outperforms the direct-access model in relative clauses.

The discourse structure of free indirect discourse reports

We investigate the discourse structure of Free Indirect Discourse passages in narratives. We argue that Free Indirect Discourse reports consist of two separate propositional discourse units: an (explicit or implicit) frame segment and a reported content. These segments are connected at the level of discourse structure by a non-veridical, subordinating discourse relation of Attribution, familiar from recent SDRT analyses of indirect discourse constructions in natural conversation (Hunter, 2016). We conducted an experiment to detect the covert presence of a subordinating frame segment based on its effects on pronoun resolution. We compared (unframed) Free Indirect Discourse with overtly framed Indirect Discourse and a non-reportative segment. We found that the first two indeed pattern alike in terms of pronoun resolution, which we take as evidence against the pragmatic context split approach of Schlenker (2004) and Eckardt (2014), and in favor of our discourse structural Attribution analysis.

Can a corpus-driven lexical analysis of human and machine translation unveil discourse features that set them apart?

There is still much to learn about the ways in which human and machine translation differ with regard to the contexts that regulate the production and interpretation of discourse. The present study explores whether a corpus-driven lexical analysis of human and machine translation can unveil discourse features that set the two apart. A balanced corpus of source texts aligned with authentic, professional translations and neural machine translations was compiled for the study. Lexical discrepancies in the two translation corpora were then extracted via a corpus-driven keyword analysis, and examined qualitatively through parallel concordances of source texts aligned with human and machine translation. The study shows that keyword analysis not only reiterates known problems of discourse in machine translation such as lexical inconsistency and pronoun resolution, but can also provide valuable insights regarding contextual aspects of translated discourse deserving further research.

The Influence of Focus Marking on Pronoun Resolution in Dialogue Context

Using visual world eye-tracking, we examined whether adults (N = 58) and children (N = 37; 3;1–6;3) use linguistic focussing devices to help resolve ambiguous pronouns. Participants listened to English dialogues about potential referents of an ambiguous pronoun he. Four conditions provided prosodic focus marking to the grammatical subject or to the object, which were either additionally it-clefted or not. A reference condition focussed neither the subject nor object. Adult online data revealed that linguistic focussing via prosodic marking enhanced subject preference, and overrode it in the case of object focus, regardless of the presence of clefts. Children’s processing was also influenced by prosodic marking; however, their performance across conditions showed some differences from adults, as well as a complex interaction with both their memory and language skills. Offline interpretations showed no effects of focus in either group, suggesting that while multiple cues are processed, subjecthood and first mention dominate the final interpretation in cases of conflict.

Lexical interference in non-native resolution of possessives?

Research on non-native pronoun resolution has predominantly been concerned with (i) ‘ordinary’ 3rd person pronouns/anaphors like En. "he", "she", "they" or "himself", "herself", "themselves", (ii) language pairs involving English as the native (L1) or the foreign (L2) language, and (iii) the role that binding constraints and syntactic structure in general play in L2 versus L1 processing. The present paper – a follow-up study to Pitz et al. (2017) – deviates from this trend in all three respects: We investigate how L1-Norwegian learners of L2-German interpret the two German possessive pronouns/determiners "sein" (≈ his) and "ihr" (≈ her or their), arguing that lexical divergence between the possessive systems, and in particular the formal similarity between binding-neutral L2-German "sein" and the L1-Norwegian reflexive possessive "sin", may enhance or interfere with L2 comprehension, depending on the structural conditions. In Section 2 we briefly present the two possessive systems. Section 3 summarizes relevant research on pronoun resolution, with a special view to possessives. Sections 4–6 present a pilot study on L1-Norwegian learners’ grammaticality judgments of "sein" and "ihr" in simple sentences (Sect. 5) and a forced-choice resolution experiment involving a group of L1-Norwegian learners with a background two or three years’ teaching of L2-German at high-school level and a control group of native speakers of German (Sect. 6). The final Section 7 provides a summary and concluding discussion of our findings.