Case Matching and Conflicting Bindings Interference

Abstract

Similarity-based interference (SBI) has recently gained more attention in the domain of sentence processing (e.g. Gordon et al., 2007). In this paper we demonstrate that similarity can also have facilitative effects on processing, a finding that interference theories such as Gordon et al's cannot explain. We offer an explanation for such interference effects as well as the facilitative effects in terms of independently motivated assumptions about the structure of memory representations (Hommel, 1998; inter alia). An attractive aspect of this explanation of similarity-based interference and facilitation effects is that so-called case-matching phenomena can also be accounted for. To this end we present two experiments: In Experiment 1 we demonstrate that case matching can occur even with noncoreferent NPs, given a sufficient level of similarity. In Experiment 2 we show that case matching is really driven by abstract case proper as opposed to other properties canonically associated with it. In sum, we provide a unified explanation for interference, facilitation and case-matching effects. A broader implication of this account is that case ambiguities are not resolved immediately but rather the multiple representations are maintained in parallel---a mechanism that is clearly not compatible with serial parsing strategies.Acknowledgments We would like to thank Gisbert Fanselow for very helpful suggestions concern-

Subject encodings and retrieval interference

“…In interpreting these measures, we follow previous work on interference using eye-tracking (e.g. Logačev & Vasishth, 2012). First pass times are the sum of all fixations in a region before exiting to either the left or the right -an estimate of early processing stages, including di culty in integrating the text during reading (Inho↵, 1984).…”

“…If complex constituents are associated with stronger rep-resentations, then the features of the complex intervener might disrupt those encoded on the target, a form of encoding interference, e.g. feature over-writing (Nairne, 1990;Oberauer & Kliegl, 2006) or conflicting bindings (Logačev & Vasishth, 2012). Alternatively, complexity may modulate di culty because attaching additional material to a head increases its availability and facilitates (mis)retrieval due to retrieval interference.…”

“…This pattern is consistent with the results of our experiments, if we assume that in the absence of morphological case (there were no pronouns in our materials) retrieval relies on abstract case alone. Further evidence comes from Logačev & Vasishth (2012), who showed that similarity in abstract case alone was su cient to engender interference in the processing of German sentences.…”

Distinctiveness and encoding effects in online sentence comprehension

“…This makes explicit the idea that syntactic and semantic features not directly invoked by the local sentence context can influence retrieval processes, in contrast to assumptions that only the similarity of features “grammatically derived from the current word and context” enter into considerations of similarity-based interference (Lewis et al, 2006 , p. 448) 2 . Sentence processing models built upon the latter kind of assumption face difficulty explaining some classic retrieval interference effects in the sentence processing literature (Logačev and Vasishth, 2012 ). For instance, Gordon et al ( 2001 ) show that processing in object-cleft sentences like 7 is easier at the subcategorizing verb (“saw”) when the two NPs are of different types (proper name vs. definite description), but that such effects are absent in subject relativization constructions: (7) It was John/the barber that the lawyer/Bill saw in the parking lot.…”

Surprisal and Interference Effects of Case Markers in

“…These three case markers are much lower in frequency in the HUTB compared to the other four and might not represent the dominant tendency. However, future inquiries need to explore the role of case-based facilita-tion (Logačev and Vasishth, 2012). Since our features are not sensitive to clause boundaries, conclusive evidence for phonological interference will emerge only after controlling for clause boundaries.…”