Distinguishing the time course of lexical and discourse processes through context, coreference, and quantified expressions.

Abstract

How does prior context influence lexical-and discourse-level processing during real-time language comprehension? Experiment 1 examined whether the referential ambiguity introduced by a repeated, anaphoric expression had an immediate or delayed effect on lexical and discourse processing, using an eye-tracking while reading task. Eye-movements indicated facilitated recognition of repeated expressions, suggesting that prior context can rapidly influence lexical processing. However, context effects at the discourse level affected later processing, appearing in longer regression-path durations two words after the anaphor and in greater re-reading times of the antecedent expression. Experiments 2 and 3 explored the nature of this delay by examining the role of the preceding context in activating relevant representations. Off-line and on-line interpretations confirmed that relevant referents were activated following the critical context. Nevertheless, their initial unavailability during comprehension suggests a robust temporal division between lexical-and discourse-level processing.

Distinguishing lexical- versus discourse-level processing using event-related potentials

“…We found that discourse effects followed lexical ones, both when co-referencing occurred within a clause and when it occurred between clauses. These patterns straightforwardly map onto models of comprehension where lexical processes logically precede discourse processes (Ferreira & Patson, 2007; Huang & Gordon, 2011; Tily et al, 2010), although these accounts would still need to contend with prior evidence of interactivity (Kim & Osterhout, 2005; Kuperberg et al, 2003; Kuperberg et al, 2007; Ledoux et al, 2007; Swaab et al, 2004). While a complete synthesis of these patterns is not yet in hand, we believe that the present research suggests a linguistic architecture that involves both functionally separable levels of representations and interactive mappings along their interfaces.…”

“…Consistent with earlier behavioral and neural studies (Scarborough et al, 1977; Young & Rugg, 1992), we found that these processes are sensitive to the inherent statistics of a target word (frequency of John vs. Earl ), as well as its relational occurrence within a sentence (repetition of John vs. introduction of Eric ). At the discourse level, linguistically specified content is matched with a mental model of the event that integrates across past and current context (Gordon & Hendrick, 1998; Huang & Gordon, 2011). In the case of anaphora, the prominence of the antecedent influences the felicity of the expressions used to co-refer.…”

“…Yet there remains debate about how these cues are processed during real-time interpretation. One class of hypotheses argues that inputs are mapped onto separable levels of representations and that processes at preceding levels partially constrain computations at subsequent levels (Ferreira & Patson, 2007; Huang & Gordon, 2011; Tily, Federenko, & Gibson, 2010). These accounts maintain that architectural features of the cognitive system limit the concurrent processing of all information, resulting in differential time courses for different types of linguistic procedures.…”

“…These accounts maintain that architectural features of the cognitive system limit the concurrent processing of all information, resulting in differential time courses for different types of linguistic procedures. For example, since lexical processes logically precede discourse processes, one would expect evidence of the former to emerge prior to the latter (Huang & Snedeker, 2009a, 2009b, 2011; Ledoux, Gordon, Camblin, & Swaab, 2007). A contrasting class of hypotheses suggests that all relevant inputs are recruited by an all-purpose parser that constrains comprehension in an optimal and exhaustive manner (Grodner, Klein, Carbary, & Tanenhaus, 2010; Jurafsky, 1996; Levy, 2008).…”

“…The goal of both experiments is to assess the neural and temporal patterns associated with discourse-level interpretations of co-referential expressions by comparing them with the reduced N400 response following repeated names, as compared with new names (Ledoux et al, 2007; Swaab et al, 2004). Repetition priming of this kind provides a useful benchmark of lexical processing with which the timing of discourse processing can be compared (Huang & Gordon, 2011). If linguistic inputs are analyzed via separable levels of interpretation, lexical and postlexical processes should correspond to distinct neural and/or temporal patterns.…”