An experimental investigation of referential/non-referential asymmetries in syntactic reconstruction akira omaki anastasia conroy jeffrey lidz Quantitative

An experimental investigation of referential/non-referential asymmetries

in syntactic reconstruction

akira omakianastasia conroy

jeffrey lidz

Quantitative Investigations of Theoretical Linguistics 3: June 2-4, 2008

what do syntactic judgments reveal about the grammar?

… to help us determine the structure of the grammar

making an acceptability judgment

what we do…

take a judgment from here

…to be reflective of here

acceptability judgments

grammatical hypothesis

context hypothesis

assume we find a construction where a factor, X, modulates acceptability

we must determine whether X is referenced in the grammar

or if the variance in acceptability can be described by the participant’s ability to create a context to make a

judgment


context hypothesis

string

meaning 1 meaning 2✘

grammar

context

string

meaning 1 meaning 2 meaning 1 meaning 2


✘

✘

string



context hypothesis

ultimately, we must ask this question of every factor that influences acceptability judgments

as a way to identify which factors the grammar references



context hypothesis

we are going to investigate this issue with referentiality and reconstruction:

a domain where it has been claimed that referentiality is referenced by the grammar

outline

reflexives in English- Mary believes [that Bill kicked himself]

- Bill believes [that Mary kicked himself]

binding: principle A

✘

Accessible

Inaccessible

reflexives must be bound in a local domain (i.e., within the same clause) (Chomsky, 1981)

Wh-argument reconstruction

Tom wondered which picture of himself [S Alex saw ___]

reconstruction interpretationsurface interpretation

wh-movement adds a new interpretive possibility

Tom Alex

syntactic reconstruction and binding

reconstruction interpretation

low reading

surface interpretation

high reading

Tom wondered which picture of himself [S Alex saw ___]

Experimental study on reconstruction and binding

Leddon 2006; Leddon & Lidz 2006Argument-fronting vs. predicate fronting in adults (and children) in Truth Value Judgment Task

• Argument-fronting (both high & low ):Miss Cruella knew which picture of herself Janie put up.

• Predicate-fronting (high , low ):Mr. Whale knew how happy with himself Mr. Walrus was.

When only one of the interpretations is true in the context…Both high & low readings

accepted for argument whOnly low readings accepted for predicate wh

Leddon 2006

referentiality and reconstruction

both interpretations are not always available…

it has been argued that referentiality matters for reconstruction: Look at amount wh-questions (how many x)

(e.g., Heycock, Fox & Nissenbaum)

referentiality background

How many people did Jon decide to hire?– Referential: how many is the set of people being

hired? existential presupposition– Non-referential: inquiring about the number to be

hired

referential Non-referential

referentiality and reconstruction

LF representations for “How many people did Jon decide to hire?”

– referential cardinality of a subset of a presupposed set[How many people]1 did Jon decide to hire t1

– Non-referential simply inquiring about number [How many]1 did Jon decide to hire t1 people

High reading

low reading

referentiality and reconstructionOn the surface they look identical in English, but these two

readings can be expressed in these word orders in other languages

ReferentialCombien de chansons vas-tu chanter?How many of songs will you sing?

Non-referentialCombien vas-tu chanter de chansons?How many will you sing of songs?

creation verbs & non-referential readings

• creation verb: cause x to be in existence• How many pictures will you draw?

– For what number x, you will cause there to be x many pictures in existence? (reconstructed)

– #For what number x, there are x many pictures you will cause there to be in existence? (surface)

• Surface readings require existential presupposition, but this is incompatible with the semantics of creation verbs

• only reconstructed (low) reading allowed for creation verbs

back to reconstruction and binding

Fox and Nissenbaum (2004) argue that creation verbs block binding of reflexive in the surface position

(see also Heycock 1995, Kroch 1989, Longobardi 1991, Sportiche 2006)

• Non-creation verb, referentialOKI asked John how many pictures of himself Mary is

likely to look at t.• Creation verb, non-referential

*I asked John how many pictures of himself Mary is likely to draw t.

summary on referentiality

referential amount Qs: asking for a subset of a presupposed set surface reading

non-referential amount Qs: asking about the number reconstructed reading

creation verbs force reconstructed reading due to its semantics

when creation verbs are present, binding possibilities are argued to be restricted to low reading

outline

question about the judgment

Fox and Nissenbaum: reconstruction is forced because the semantics does not match- surface scope (i.e., a

grammatical constraint)

another possibility is that in the judgment, one cannot construe the proper semantic context

therefore, it is a question whether this judgment represents something about the grammar

we need to find out


context hypothesis

claims that the restrictions on interpretation derive from the grammar (semantics of creation verbs)

claims that the restrictions on interpretation derive from the ability to create the relevant context

.. One needs to know how to tease apart the two potential interpretations. The most straight-forward way is to consider various scenarios for which of the two sentences would have different truth values. We think that this strategy can be employed… however, the strategy is fairly involved and we will try to bypass it here. – Fox and Nissenbaum (2004)

referentiality and linguistic judgment

acceptability judgments are quick and easy, but it is difficult to control the availability of the context that

the participant creates

an experimental scenario allows the researcher to create the context (so it is available and consistent

across speakers), and then obtain a judgment

outline

experiment overview

we want to determine whether the prohibition of non-reconstructed readings with non-referential

interpretations is a result of the grammar

therefore, we need to test creation/non-creation verbs (which reflect referential/non-referential readings) with

reflexives (so we can determine whether reconstruction has occurred) to determine the range of

allowed interpretations

experiment overview

we will do this in an experimental scenario that makes both the referential and non-referential interpretations

equally available

Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at

experiment overviewour experiment tests the referentiality contrast, using

pairs of sentences, as below

the experimental context provides two possible antecedents for the reflexives to test reconstruction

referential, non-creation verbTom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex

loved to look at

non-referential, creation verbTom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex

needed to draw

the issue

we want to know if referentiality affects reconstruction in the grammar

or, if the judgment is due to failure to construe a possible semantics

therefore, we need to test in a scenario where both interpretations are possible

desiderata of experimental design

need to make sure we can tell the difference between the two readings (reconstructed and

non-reconstructed)

cannot ask participants for explicit judgments about high/low interpretations, as to avoid

meta-linguistic effects

features of experimental designwe will ask the participants to answer the target

question


loved to look at.Do you know how many?

in a context where the numerical answer directly reveals interpretation

this avoids meta-linguistic judgments

task also alleviates burden associated with creating context

picture gallery taskthere are two pictures of Tom

in the gallery and three pictures of Alex

this sets up the unique numerical answer, and the referential interpretation of

the reflexive

the art gallery should be full, so Tom needs three more and

Alex needs two more

this sets up the non-referential interpretation

picture gallery taskTom has work to do, but

needs to know how the art gallery is doing

this sets up the need for Tom to wonder

Alex is sent to find out

picture gallery taskAlex loves the pictures in the

gallery and counts what is needed

this sets up the different numbers for referential and

non-referential

Alex doesn’t like the pictures that are outside

contrast set for referential condition

target conditions

referential conditionTom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at. Do you

know?

non-referential conditionTom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex needed to draw. Do you

know?

target conditionsreferential condition

Tom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex loved to look at. Do you

know?

HIGH: 2 LOW: 3non-referential conditionTom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex needed to draw. Do you

know?

HIGH: 3 LOW: 2

features of experimental designthe participant’s answer reveals interpretation of the

reflexive


loved to look at.Do you know how many?

because the reflexive must be locally bound, this is a direct indication of reconstruction

task allows us to obtain a judgment in a way that is easy for the participant

predictions


context hypothesis

In referential condition, either reading is permitted

In non-referential condition, only low reading available

either reading permitted in both conditions

(no difference between conditions)

referentiality in grammar referentiality about context

ambiguity resolution

because we are looking at ambiguity, we need to know what interpretations to expect to make explicit

predictions

evidence from offline experiments shows that adults prefer the high interpretation when available

(Leddon 2006)

Leddon 2006

• TVJT– Only using argument (referential) wh-phrases– Contexts license both high and low readings

Leddon 2006

When both interpretations are true in the context…

Adults prefer the high reading over 90% of the time

predictions


context hypothesis

In referential condition, either reading is permitted

In non-referential condition, only low reading available

either reading permitted in both conditions

(no difference between conditions)

referentiality in grammar referentiality about context

predictions


context hypothesis

referential:

Non-ref:

> 50%

% high readings

< 50%> 50%> 50%

predictions


context hypothesis

referential:

Non-ref:

% high readings

different same

Experiment design

3 warm up items

2 referential target items

2 non-ref target items

2 control items

Pseudo-random order

3 warm up items

2 referential target items

2 non-ref target items

2 control items

Pseudo-random order

Counterbalanced across participants

Version One Version Two

control conditions

non-referential controlTom wondered how many

drawings of Alex were needed at the gallery. Do

you know?

2

referential controlTom wondered how many

drawings of Alex were in the gallery. Do you know?

3

counterbalanced measures

order of presentation

number associated with high and low readings

side characters appeared on

participants

21 adults

native English speakers

divided evenly between versions

predictions


context hypothesis

referential:

Non-ref:

> 50%

% high readings

< 50%> 50%> 50%

different same

experiment results

controls: 93% correct

both conditions significantly above chance (p<.0001)not different from each other (p> 0.1)

predictions


context hypothesis

referential:

Non-ref:

> 50%

% high readings

< 50%> 50%> 50%

different same

outline

discussion

no difference in high readings between conditions, both above chance

recall the predictions:grammatical hypothesis: only low reading in non-

referential conditioncontext hypothesis: ambiguous in both conditions

therefore, it does not appear that referentiality grammatically constrains interpretation

alternative interpretation?

non-referential conditionTom wondered how many drawings of himself Alex

needed to draw.

Not in actual existence

virtual (if not actual) existence may be sufficient

for existential presupposition (sportiche 2006)


context hypothesis

string

meaning 1 meaning 2✘

grammar

context

string



✘

✘

string


acceptability judgments are not

directly reflective of the grammar!



context hypothesis

ultimately, we must ask this question of every factor that influences acceptability judgments

as a way to identify which factors the grammar references

acknowledgments

thanks to members of the CNL lab at the University of Maryland for their comments

and suggestions!

Experimental study on reconstruction and binding

Leddon 2006; Leddon & Lidz 2006Argument-fronting vs. predicate fronting in adults (and children) in Truth Value Judgment Task

• Argument-fronting (both high & low ):Miss Cruella knew which picture of herself Janie put up.

• Predicate-fronting (high , low ):Mr. Whale knew how happy with himself Mr. Walrus was.

When only one of the interpretations is true in the context…Both high & low readings

accepted for argument whOnly low readings accepted for predicate wh

Leddon 2006

previous research on processingOmaki et al. (2007): On-line preference for high- reading (cf. Frazier et al. 1996)

Documents

An experimental investigation of referential/non-referential asymmetries in syntactic reconstruction akira omaki anastasia conroy jeffrey lidz Quantitative