Slides
languagescience.umd.edu Syntac'c Illusions: Lessons for Encoding and Naviga'ng Structure Colin Phillips Linguis'cs Department Language Science Center Neuroscience & Cogni've Science Program “The function of a symbol is is to carry information forward in time in a manner that makes it accessible to computation.” (Randy Gallistel, this morning) My goal is to understand computation using structured representations in memory. We are very good at some things. But selective failures are more informative. Selective failures provide clues about: i. Memory access mechanisms ii. Memory encoding mechanisms scintillating grid illusion Lingelbach 1994 scintillating grid illusion … disappears Geier et al 2008 Comparative Illusion “More people have been to Russia than I have.” (Montalbetti 1984, Townsend & Bever 2001, Wellwood et al. 2011) Matt Wagers (UCSC) Ellen Lau (UMD) Brian Dillon (UMass) Nina Kazanina (Bristol) Masaya Yoshida (NWU) Ming Xiang (Chicago) Dave Kush (Haskins/Yale) Sol Lago (Potsdam) Akira Omaki (JHU) Shevaun Lewis (JHU) Wing Yee Chow (UCL) Jon Sprouse (UConn) Alexis Wellwood (NWU) Dan Parker (Wm & Mary) Core Ques/on How do we encode and navigate structured mental representa'ons? Structures are easy to draw. But what kind of mental object are they? Linguis'c arguments: rela'onal no'ons like c-‐command are pervasive. In some architectures it is trivial to capture rela'onal no'ons like c-‐command. In other architectures it is not trivial. Strategy 1. Sentences require structured memory representations. the cat sat on the mat 2. Many words are retrieval instructions: find specific information in specific location English Reflexive Pronouns Sally said that [John blamed himself]. John said that [Sally blamed himself]. The man [that Sally knows] blamed himself. The woman [that John knows] blamed himself. 3. Steal from memory literature (mostly list memory) Syntactic Computation 1. Encoding: structured memory representation – incremental assembly 2. Access: rapid targeting of specific elements of memory representation 3. Control: state of memory representation guides further elaboration Logic of Real-time Studies 1. Grammatical constraints diagnose encoding and access mechanisms e.g., if constraint X involves c-command and constraint X is reliably applied in real-time processes then encoding and access mechanisms can refer to c-command 2. Imperfect real-time constraint application is informative e.g., if c-command is never reliably respected – could reflect encoding or access but if some processes respect c-command, then encoding is ok. Selective implementation of a constraint points to access mechanisms. Pronoun Interpretation • In some sentence-types, name-pronoun order is flexible – While John was reading the book, he ate an apple. – While he was reading the book, John ate an apple. • In minimally different sentences, it is not flexible Can search for pronoun interpretation ignore inappropriate nouns? – John ate an apple while he was reading the book. – *He ate an apple while John was reading the book. • Binding “Principle C” – antecedent can’t be in scope of pronoun Cross-linguistically robust, but limited functional value Principle C S NP he VP S’ VP V ate NP the apple Comp while S NP John VP was reading the book He ate the apple while John was reading the book Gender Mismatch Effect Good co-reference While she … Jessica … Russell … While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. (Kazanina et al., 2007) Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- ------- --- ----- ---- --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading While -- --- ------- --- ----- ---- --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- he --- ------- --- ----- ---- --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- was ------- --- ----- ---- --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- reading --- ----- ---- --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- ------- the ----- ---- --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- ------- --- book, ---- --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- ------- --- ----- John --- -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- ------- --- ----- ---- ate -- ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- ------- --- ----- ---- --- an ------ Self Paced Reading ----- -- --- ------- --- ----- ---- --- -- apple. On-line effect of Principle C 500 460 420 Good co-reference While she … Match 380 Jessica … 340 300 Russell … Mismatch Good Bad While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. Bad co-reference while Jessica … She … while Russell … Pronoun interpretation is ‘blind’ to grammatically inappropriate nouns. (multiple constructions in English, also Russian, even Japanese) She was taking classes full-time while Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. She was taking classes full-time while Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. (Kazanina et al., 2007) On-line Grammatical Sensitivity • Anaphora: Principle C English: Kazanina et al. 2007; Japanese: Aoshima et al. 2009; Russian: Kazanina & Phillips 2010 English-crossover: Kush, Lidz, & Phillips 2013 • Anaphora: Principle A Nicol & Swinney 1989; Clifton et al., 1998; Badecker & Straub 2002; Sturt 2003; Xiang et al. 2009; Dillon et al. 2013 • Islands Subjects: Stowe 1986; Bourdages 1992; Traxler & Pickering 1996; Omaki & Schulz 2010; Rel. Cl.: McElree & Griffith 1998; CSC: Wagers & Phillips 2009; wh-islands: Neville et al. 1991; Japanese: Yoshida et al. 2004; Parasitic gaps: Phillips 2006 • Sluicing Yoshida et al. 2011 • Agreement (selective) Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009 • Case (selective) Bader & Bayer 2006 • Anaphora: Principle B (disputed) Nicol & Swinney 1989; Clifton et al. 1997; Runner et al. 2006; Lewis et al. 2012 BUT: Badecker & Straub 2002; Lee & Williams 2006 Agreement “And in the absence of large-scale policy differences between the two candidates, the personal nature of their exchanges are more likely to result in lasting damage.” [4/9/08] “Republicans privately acknowledge this, arguing that in the hands of a more popular politician, the ideas that Cheney are putting forward could find fertile ground with the American people.” [5/21/09] Agreement Illusions Not only do we produce agreement errors – we generally fail to notice them “The key to the cells unsurprisingly were rusty …” “The key to the cell unsurprisingly were rusty …” It’s not simply ‘proximity concord’: “The musicians who the reviewer praise so highly …” “The musician who the reviewer praise so highly …” And it is selective – plurals create illusions, singulars don’t “The keys to the cell unsurprisingly was rusty …” And it happens all the time … (Bock & Miller 1991; Pearlmutter et al. 1999; Deevy et al. 1998; Staub 2009; Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009; Eberhard et al. 2005) “Rapid writing will no doubt give rise to inaccuracy. … A singular nominative will be disgraced by a plural verb, because other pluralities have intervened and have tempted the ear into plural tendencies. I am ready to declare that, with much training, I have been unable to avoid them.” (Anthony Trollope, 1883) What causes agreement attraction? 1. Encoding: hallucinating plural subject 2. Access: misretrieving irrelevant noun Evidence: Grammatical Asymmetry Illusions of acceptability The key to the cabinet were The key to the cabinets were No illusions of unacceptability The key to the cabinet was The key to the cabinets was Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009, J Mem Lang Two ways to search structures in memory serial, structure-guided search S Subj the key S VP PP to parallel, cue-guided (direct) access in content-addressable memory the cells Subj the key V were 0 1 VP PP to the cells 0 0 0 0 1 0 V were +plural +subject structure-sensitive, avoids interference susceptible to interference slow, esp. for longer relations fast, even for longer relations McElree et al. 2003; Lewis et al. 2006; Martin & McElree 2008, 2009; Wagers, Lau, & Phillips, 2009 Grammatical Illusions • Agreement Clifton, Frazier & Deevy, 1999; Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009 • Negative Polarity Vasishth et al. 2008; Xiang et al. 2009; Parker & Phillips 2013 • Comparatives Wellwood et al. in prep • Case Bader & Bayer 2006; Sloggett 2013 • Thematic assignment Ferreira et al. 2003; Kim & Osterhout 2005; Kuperberg 2007 BUT Chow & Phillips 2013 • Anaphora: Principle B (disputed) Badecker & Straub 2002; Lee & Williams 2006 BUT Nicol & Swinney 1989; Clifton et al. 1997; Runner et al. 2006; Lewis et al. 2012 Same Memory – Different Access Subject-Verb Agreement The diva [that accompanied the harpist on stage] clearly was flawless … The diva [that accompanied the harpists on stage] clearly was flawless … The diva [that accompanied the harpist on stage] clearly were flawless … The diva [that accompanied the harpists on stage] clearly were flawless … illusion Subject-Reflexive Agreement The diva [that accompanied the harpist on stage] clearly presented herself … The diva [that accompanied the harpists on stage] clearly presented herself … The diva [that accompanied the harpist on stage] clearly presented themselves … The diva [that accompanied the harpists on stage] clearly presented themselves … Both processes require access to same element -- the subject of the same clause. no illusion Dillon, Mishler, Sloggett, & Phillips, 2013 Argument 3: Timing Lago et al. in press, J Mem Lang Argument 3: Timing Lago et al. in press, J Mem Lang Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) yet ever anything anywhere anybody lift a finger in years the slightest bit say a word a damn thing a red cent John hasn’t ever been to Rio. John has ever been to Rio. Nobody can solve the problem yet. Somebody can solve the problem yet. Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) NPIs are licensed by negation and negative-like contexts Nobody expects Congress to ever change. Voters expect Congress to ever change. Few people expect Congress to ever change. Voters doubt that Congress will ever change. But the negation can’t be just anywhere – must be structurally higher than NPI *The people [rel. cl. who can’t stand it] expect Congress to ever change. NPI Illusions No bills [that the democratic senators supported] will ever become law. *The bills [that the democratic senators supported] will ever become law. *The bills [that no democratic senators supported] will ever become law. (German: Drenhaus et al. 2005; Vasishth et al. 2008; English: Xiang, Dillon, & Phillips, 2009) Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) No authors [that the cri'cs recommended] have ever received praise for a best-‐selling novel. The authors [that no cri/cs recommended] have ever received praise for a best-‐selling novel. The authors [that the cri'cs recommended] have ever received praise for a best-‐selling novel. Speeded Acceptability: Ever Parker & Phillips 2013 Experiments 1-3: ever vs. any Manipulated presence and location of a potential licensor any conditions Accessible licensor No authors [that the critics recommended] have received any praise for a best-selling novel. Inaccessible licensor The authors [that no critics recommended] have received any praise for a best-selling novel. No licensor The authors [that the critics recommended] have received any praise for a best-selling novel. Parker & Phillips 2013 Experiments 1-3: ever vs. any Manipulated presence and location of a potential licensor ever conditions Accessible licensor No authors [that the critics recommended] have ever received praise for a best-selling novel. Inaccessible licensor The authors [that no critics recommended] have ever received praise for a best-selling novel. No licensor The authors [that the critics recommended] have ever received praise for a best-selling novel. Parker & Phillips 2013 Experiment 1: Off-line Acceptability Ratings p: *** <0.005, ** <0.01, * <0.05 Parker & Phillips 2013 Experiment 2: Speeded Acceptability Ratings ever any *** *** n.s. *** p: *** <0.005, ** <0.01, * <0.05 Experiment 3: SPR w/ ever NPI Illusion NPI Accessible Inaccessible No licensor Experiment 3: SPR w/ any Accessible Inaccessible No licensor No improvement NPI Experiments 4-5: Positional Manipulation • Maintains position of NPI from Experiments 1-3: pre- vs. post-verbal NPI • Controls for syntactic category: single NPI ever Experiments 4-5: Positional Manipulation Manipulated presence and location of a potential licensor Pre-verbal ever conditions Accessible licensor No journalists [that the editors recommended for the assignment] ever thought that the readers would understand the complicated situation. Inaccessible licensor The journalists [that no editors recommended for the assignment] ever thought that the readers would understand the complicated situation. No licensor The journalists [that the editors recommended for the assignment] ever thought that the readers would understand the complicated situation. Experiments 4-5: Positional Manipulation Manipulated presence and location of a potential licensor Post-verbal ever conditions Accessible licensor No journalists [that the editors recommended for the assignment] thought that the readers would ever understand the complicated situation. Inaccessible licensor The journalists [that no editors recommended for the assignment] thought that the readers would ever understand the complicated situation. No licensor The journalists [that the editors recommended for the assignment] thought that the readers would ever understand the complicated situation. Pre-verbal Post-verbal *** *** n.s. *** p: *** <0.005, ** <0.01, * <0.05 Experiment 5: Pre-verbal ever NPI Illusion NPI Accessible Inaccessible No licensor Experiment 5: Post-verbal ever Accessible Inaccessible No licensor No improvement NPI Experiment 6: Parentheticals Accessible licensor No authors [that the critics recommended] have, (as the editor mentioned), ever received a pay raise. Inaccessible licensor The authors [that no critics recommended] have, (as the editor mentioned), ever received a pay raise. No licensor The authors [that the critics recommended] have, (as the editor mentioned), ever received a pay raise. 3 other conditions are identical, but with parenthetical in sentence-initial position. Experiment 6: Parentheticals *** *** *** n.s. Suggestion: target memory encoding changes • Qualitative shift in the target memory encoding Independent features susceptible to partial matches ENCODING SHIFT Feature binding immune to partial matches Mathematical models • Tensor-product algebra (e.g., Smolensky 1990) • Holographic Reduced Representations (e.g. Plate, 2003) Comparative Illusion “More people have been to Russia than I have.” (Montalbetti 1984, Townsend & Bever 2001, Wellwood et al. 2011) Comparative Illusion: Possible Sources • Mis-remembering word order: ‘more’ is determiner & adverb – People have been to Russia more than I have. – Test: change ‘more’ to ‘fewer’ (unambiguous) – Fewer people have been to Russia than I have. ß illusions persist • ‘Additional more’ – ‘It’s not just me who has been to Russia’ – Test: change second clause to block this interpretation – More girls have been to Russia than the boy has. ß illusions persist • Word order clue – More people have been to Russia [than I have] – More people [than I have] have been to Russia ß breaking 1st clause stops illusion • Event comparison: consistent effects of ±repeatable predicates (Wellwood, Pancheva, Hacquard, & Phillips, 2011) Coherent Incoherent Non-repeatable Repeatable More undergrads call their families during the week than grad students do. More undergrads call their families during the week than I do. 6.05 More New Yorkers began law school this semester than rich Canadians did. 5.47 5.28 More New Yorkers began law school this semester than I did. 3.78 (Wellwood, Pancheva, Hacquard, & Phillips, 2011) Comparative Illusion • ‘Comparison of individuals’ treated as ‘comparison of events’ • This is quite common in normal language (Krifka 1990; Barker 1999) – The [George Washington] bridge carried 107,912,000 vehicles in 2007. (Wikipedia) – More vehicles crossed the bridge in 2007 than in any other year. – More people have been to Russia in the past 10 years than in the previous 50. Lessons so far … • Real-time failures traditionally taken to motivate a disconnect between concerns of linguistics and psycholinguistics. • Closer examination leads to a different conclusion: selective failures are highly informative about representations and computations. • Agreement & Anaphora: how linguistic constraints guide memory access • Negative polarity & comparative illusions: reflect nature of encodings and how they change over time • Tomorrow: (i) tension between access mechanisms and linguistic constraints; (ii) domain specific/general contributions
© Copyright 2024