Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing

Dickey, Michael Walsh; Bunger, Ann

doi:10.1080/01690961003691074

Cited by 53 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, the proposed role for structure expectations in real-time anaphor resolution is consistent with the well-known preference for parallel antecedents in ellipsis and with pronouns (Arregui et al, 2006; Dickey & Bunger, 2011; Kehler, 2000; Mauner et al, 1995; Smyth, 1994; Tanenhaus & Carlson, 1990). Furthermore, antecedent recovery in ellipsis (VPE, Sluicing, Gapping) is immediate in “and”-conjoined constructions (Kaan, Wijnen, & Swaab, 2004; Shapiro & Hestvik, 1995, Exp.1; Shapiro et al, 2003; present study).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Antecedent Reactivation At the Elision Sitesupporting

confidence: 75%

“…In fact, the processing advantage for parallel structures has been argued to be even stronger in elliptical structures (Fox, 2000; Kehler, 2000), suggesting that ellipsis draws upon parallelism in a way that nonelliptical sentences do not. Experimental evidence has repeatedly demonstrated that an elliptical clause is processed more quickly following a parallel antecedent (Arregui, Clifton, Frazier, & Moulton, 2006; Dickey & Bunger, 2011; Mauner, Tanenhaus, & Carlson, 1995; Tanenhaus & Carlson, 1990). Furthermore, an antecedent seems to be re-activated earlier in elliptical constructions conjoined by a parallelism-implying conjunction (“and”) than in elliptical sentences otherwise conjoined (Poirier, Wolfinger, Spellman, & Shapiro, 2010; Shapiro & Hestvik, 1995).…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora

Poirier

Walenski

Shapiro

2012

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parallelism effects refer to the facilitated processing of a target structure when it follows a similar, parallel structure. In coordination, a parallelism-related conjunction triggers the expectation that a second conjunct with the same structure as the first conjunct should occur. It has been proposed that parallelism effects reflect the use of the first structure as a template that guides the processing of the second. In this study, we examined the role of parallelism in real-time anaphora resolution by charting activation patterns in coordinated constructions containing anaphora, Verb-Phrase Ellipsis (VPE) and Noun-Phrase Traces (NP-traces). Specifically, we hypothesised that an expectation of parallelism would incite the parser to assume a structure similar to the first conjunct in the second, anaphora-containing conjunct. The speculation of a similar structure would result in early postulation of covert anaphora. Experiment 1 confirms that following a parallelism-related conjunction, first-conjunct material is activated in the second conjunct. Experiment 2 reveals that an NP-trace in the second conjunct is posited immediately where licensed, which is earlier than previously reported in the literature. In light of our findings, we propose an intricate relation between structural expectations and anaphor resolution.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 2: Antecedent Reactivation At the Elision Sitesupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora

Poirier

Walenski

Shapiro

2012

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Antecedent-ellipsis mismatches such as [8b] are dispreferred or more costly to process compared to their matching counterpart [8a] (Frazier and Clifton 2005; Dickey and Bunger, under review). Still, antecedent-ellipsis mismatches can be acceptable to various degrees and are in fact fairly common (Tanenhaus and Carlson 1990; Kehlar 2000; Arregui et al 2006; Kertz 2008; see also Postdam 2007 for evidence in Sluicing).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [4a], the NP is an argument of the verb, whereas the NP is an adjunct in [4b] (only arguments are required for grammaticality—adjuncts are superfluous information). This distinction has processing consequences: Dickey and Bunger (under review) found that the elliptical clause is read more slowly in the case of adjunct elision [4b]. Furthermore, they observed similar processing costs in the non-elided versions of these sentences, suggesting that the same operation applies to both types of sentences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, in [5b], the processor is faced with a constituent of the sluiced sentence ( what ) that has no explicit counterpart in the antecedent. The ‘incompleteness’ of the antecedent phrase results in longer processing times in [5b] than in [5a] (Dickey and Bunger, under review; Frazier and Clifton 1998). This processing cost seems to stem from a general penalty for non-parallelism between clauses and not from an ellipsis-specific operation to create the missing syntactic position for what in the sluiced sentence (Chung et al 1995; Dickey and Bunger, under review).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Real-Time Processing of Sluiced Sentences

Poirier

Wolfinger

Spellman

et al. 2010

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ellipsis refers to an element that is absent from the input but whose meaning can nonetheless be recovered from context. In this cross-modal priming study, we examined the online processing of Sluicing, an ellipsis whose antecedent is an entire clause: The handyman threw a book to the programmer but I don’t know which book the handyman threw to the programmerellipsis. To understand such an elliptical construction, the listener arguably must ‘fill in’ the missing material (“the handyman threw___ to the programmer”) based on that which occurs in the antecedent clause. We aimed to determine the point in time in which reconstruction of the sluiced sentence is attempted and whether such a complex antecedent is re-accessed by the ellipsis. Out of the two antecedent constituents for which we probed, only the Object (programmer) was found active in the elliptical clause, confirming that an antecedent is attributed to the sluice in real time. Possible reasons for the non-observation of the Subject (handyman) are considered. We also suggest that ellipses are detected earlier in coordinated than subordinated sentences.

show abstract

Alternatives on Demand and Locality: Resolving Discourse-Linked Wh-Phrases in Sluiced Structures

Harris

2019

Grammatical Approaches to Language Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing

Cited by 53 publications

References 29 publications

The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora

The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora

The Real-Time Processing of Sluiced Sentences

Alternatives on Demand and Locality: Resolving Discourse-Linked Wh-Phrases in Sluiced Structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About