differences)betweennative)and …aschafer/schafer_jsls_2017_slides.pdfdifferences)betweennative)and...
TRANSCRIPT
Differences between native and non-‐native English listeners in the use of prosodic focus
and event structure to anticipate discourse structure
and resolve referenceAmy J. Schafer
University of Hawai‘i
JSLS 2017, Kyoto, July 2017 [email protected] @amyjschafer
Theres Grüter(University of Hawai‘i)
Hannah Rohde(University of Edinburgh)
Plus Amber Camp, Wenyi Ling, Aya Takeda, and our wonderful team of research assistants (University of Hawai‘i)
NSF Standard Grant BCS-‐1251450
2
situation model
expectationsabout who & what will be mentioned next
We use our general knowledge of events to create situation models for a discourse, which guide our expectations for how it will unfold, such as who will be mentioned next
4
situation model:completed event
increased expectation to hear about
what happened next
Wenyi gave Nancy some chocolates.
5
SheNancy …
increased expectation to hear about the causeor about event details
Wenyi gave Nancy some chocolates.Wenyi was giving Nancy some chocolates.
SheWenyi …
6
SheNancy …
situation model:ongoing event
Focus of today’s talk
•To what extent is the comprehension of language influenced by the anticipation of upcoming discourse material?• In native speakers of English • And in non-‐native Japanese-‐ and Korean-‐speaking learners of English
•Specifically, is anticipation for next-‐mention influenced by:• Event structure (completed versus ongoing events)?• Prosody?
8
Aspect and co-‐reference
•Significant effects of grammatical aspect on co-‐reference for native speakers of:• English(e.g., Rohde, Kehler & Elman, 2006; Kehler, Kertz, Rohde & Elman, 2008; Ferretti, Rohde, Kehler & Crutchley, 2009)• Japanese(Ueno & Kehler, 2010, 2016)
• Korean(Kim, Grüter & Schafer, 2013, in prep.)
ØWill it also affect non-‐native speakers?
9
Prosody and co-‐reference
• Little research -‐ even for native speakers of English•Mixed results• Prosodic form rarely described in detail
•Here: Use of contrastive prosody (prosodic focus)
10
Contrastive prosody
• Increases attention to the focused phrase (e.g., Cutler & Foss, 1977; Fraundorf et al, 2010)
•Attracts relative clauses (e.g., Schafer et al, 1996)
•Facilitates comprehension of alternatives (e.g., Dahan et al, 2002; Ito & Speer, 2008)• Hang the green drum. • Now hang the BLUEL+H* drum…
•Primes alternatives (“contrast associates”) (e.g., Braun & Tagliapietra, 2010; Husband & Ferreira, 2015)
11
Suprasegmentals and second language learners (L2ers)• Humans begin adapting to their native-‐language suprasegmental system prenatally• L2 perception of suprasegmentals is shaped by the L1 system (e.g., L1 intonation affects L2 lexical tone perception)• Suprasegmentals are widely perceived to be challenging for L2ers, in production and perception• Yet the acquisition of L2 prosody/intonation is understudied• Even though it is valuable to both basic and applied questions
12
Contrastive prosody involves multiple levels of representation…who…? discourse/information structure, QUD{Marianna, Beth} alternative sets[Marianna]F syntactic marking
L+H* presence/type of pitch accentMariANna f0, duration
• A learner must identify sets of acoustic cues and make appropriate mappings to higher-‐level linguistic distinctions• As researchers, we need to tease apart processing/learning at different levels• E.g., is prosodic prominence (e.g., expanded f0) detected without it being appropriately mapped to alternative sets or alternative Questions Under Discussion?
13
Assuming effects of contrastive prosody in native speakers:Will native-‐Japanese and native-‐Korean learners of English demonstrate effects?• Both Japanese and Korean use prosodic prominence (e.g., expanded f0) to mark contrastive focusPredict at least basic “prominence” effects
• Both differ from English in their intonational phonology English has multiple types of pitch accents; J/K do not
• Japanese learners show difficulty with English pitch accents(e.g., Takeda et al 2015a,b; Nakamura, Symposium talk)
• Numerous other differences between J/K and English Morphological focus markers, use of pronouns, scrambling…Predict more L1/L2 differences for “higher-‐level” decisions
14
Discourse comprehension in native speakers: A dynamic process with incremental updates
15
“Wenyi …first mention, subject, topic -‐> important to discourse“WenyiSource gave …
transfer event, completed -‐> what’s the result?“WenyiSource gave NancyGoal …
goal, 2nd human -‐> new possible topic“Wenyi gave Nancy some chocolates. She …
pronoun -‐> subject/topic bias“Wenyi gave Nancy some chocolates. She ate them… à SheNancy
She had found them…à SheWenyi
coherence relation
Processing by non-‐native speakers
• Incremental• Potentially different weighting of cues
(e.g., less reliance on ‘syntax’, more on ‘discourse’?)• Potentially less anticipatory• Lexical semantics: yes(e.g., Chambers & Cooke, 2009)•Morphosyntax: mixed findings(see Kaan, 2014, for review)•Discourse: ? (current studies)
16
The RAGE hypothesis
Non-‐native speakers have: reduced ability to generate expectations
(Grüter, Rohde & Schafer, 2014, 2016)
• Stated strongly, to push forward research questions
• Attention to expectations, to refine “processing difficulty”
• Requires us to sharpen our views of when/how processing decisions take place, in native speakers and in non-‐native speakers
17
Part 1: Story continuation experiments
•Participant reads/hears the beginning of a story•Then provides a continuation in their own words
•Open-‐ended task; rich linguistic information:• Next-‐mention preferences (referent of the continuation subject)• Coherence patterns(e.g. whether the next sentence describes an outcome of the previous event, provides an explanation, etc.)
19
Exp1: Participants
•39 native speakers of English
•48 non-‐native speakers• 23 native Japanese• 25 native Korean•Mostly international or exchange students at UH• Proficiency: majority are B2 (Independent Users) or A2 (advanced Basic Users) in the Council of Europe framework
21
Exp1: Stimuli and design2 (aspect) x 2 (prompt type) design
COMPLETED TRANSFER-‐OF-‐POSSESSION EVENT (PERFECTIVE)Emily brought a drink to Melissa. She _______________________ Emily brought a drink to Melissa. __________________________
ONGOING TRANSFER-‐OF-‐POSSESSION EVENT (IMPERFECTIVE)Emily was bringing a drink to Melissa. She ____________________Emily was bringing a drink to Melissa. _______________________
Previous research on prompt type: • Pro-‐forms in subject position à increased reference to the previous subject for native speakers of English, Japanese, and Korean
Latin square design, 5 items/condition + 20 fillers(10 verbs: bring, feed, give, mail, pass, push, roll, serve, take, throw)
22
Annotation for co-‐referenceEmilySOURCE brought/was bringing a drink to MelissaGOAL (She) ______
She thought Melissa was thirsty.(SOURCE-‐continuation)
Melissa said “Thank you.”(GOAL-‐continuation)
She did not want it. (ambiguous: 4/4% of L1/L2 data)
It was Coke. (other: 12/13% of L1/L2 data)
23
Annotation for coherenceEmily brought/was bringing a drink to Melissa. (She) _______________
She thought Melissa was thirsty. (EXPLANATION)
She gave her Coke. (ELABORATION)
Emily dropped it on the ground. (VIOLATED EXPECTATION)
Melissa drank it. (OCCASION)
Melissa said “Thank you.” (RESULT)
(Hobbs, 1979; Kehler, 2002)
24
Exp1: Co-‐reference results25
L1 L2
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Pronoun Free prompt Pronoun Free prompt
Prop
ortio
n of
Sou
rce−
refer
ence
resp
onse
s
AspectImperfectivePerfective
Native speakers:• Sig. effect of Aspect • Sig. effect of PromptØ rep. of previous work
Non-‐native speakers:• Significant effect of PromptØ even though pronoun acquisition can be difficult for non-‐native speakers• Reduced effect of Aspect (n.s.; sig Aspect*Group interaction)Ø consistent with RAGE hypothesis
Exp1: DiscussionNative speakers• Generate expectations based on Aspect (ongoing/completed event) and Verb type (transfer event)• Update those when a pronoun appears
Non-‐native speakers•More likely to delay decisions until they become required• Less likely to anticipate co-‐reference; less effect of Aspect on co-‐reference – even though they use it in their L1• Respond at the prompt without incorporating aspectual information
26
Experiment 2: Spoken story continuationContrastive prosody on Source/Goal
Schafer, Rohde & Grüter, 2015Schafer et al., 2015, in prep.
27
Exp2: Stimuli and design2 (aspect) x 2 (contrastive prosody location) design
COMPLETED EVENT (PERFECTIVE)DAVID served Paul a pint of beer. He _______________________David served PAUL a pint of beer. He _______________________
ONGOING EVENT (IMPERFECTIVE)DAVID was serving Paul a pint of beer. He ______________________David was serving PAUL a pint of beer. He ______________________
• All prompts begin with written pronouns
Latin square design, 5 items/condition + 20 fillers(10 verbs: bring, e-‐mail, feed, give, hand, pass, present, roll, serve, throw)
28
Exp2: Stimuli
Source contrast:BRENDA fed Anne a bowl of soup. (She __)
Goal contrast:Brenda fed ANNE a bowl of soup. (She __)
29
Brenda fed Anne a bowl of soup
L+H* L-H% L*+H !H* !H* !H* L-L%
125
450
200
300
400
Pitc
h (H
z)
Time (s)0 3.44
Brenda fed Anne a bowl of soup
L*+H !H* L+H* L-H% H* !H* L-L%
125
450
200
300
400
Pitc
h (H
z)
Time (s)0 3.3
The L+H* L-‐H% contour•Type of “Rise-‐Fall-‐Rise” (RFR) contour•Suggests contrast (L+H*) and continuation (L-‐H%)•Marks contrastive topics(e.g., Steedman, 2000; Constant, 2012; Roberts, 2012)What about Fred? What did he eat? FREDL+H L-‐H% ate the BEANSH* L-‐L%• Implicates alternatives and promotes discourse continuations that express contrast(Dennison, 2010; Kurumada et al, 2014; Dennison & Schafer, 2017; Sugawara, Symposium talk)The pencil WASL+H sharpL-‐H% …but now it’s dull.
30
Exp2: Specific prosodic hypotheses
• Prosodic boost?• (Anticipate) co-‐reference to prominent/focused entitiesØMore Source reference with Source contrastØMore Goal reference with Goal contrast
• Parallelism (topic continuity)?•Maintain a parallel information structure; answer a parallel sub-‐question of the Question Under Discussion
Ø Continue Source reference when there is Goal contrast; mention an Alternative Goal, e.g.:(David served PAUL a pint of BEER. HeDavid gave MARY some NUTS.)
31
Exp2: Co-‐reference results33
Native speakers:Aspect: significantProsody: signif.Ø Prosodic boost
Non-‐native:Aspect: n.s. (p=.3)Ø replicates Exp1Ø supports RAGE
Prosody: signif.Ø Prosodic boost
Ø Increased reference to prominent antecedent in each groupØProsody is not always difficult for non-‐native speakers
L1 L2
Imperf. Perf. Imperf. Perf.0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Prop
. of S
ourc
e re
fere
nce Contrast location
SourceGoal
Contrastive prosody
• Acoustic prominenceDAVID…
• Psychological salienceMAHO…
• Semantic contrast (alternative set)
WENYI…
• Expectations for a continuation that licenses contrast (e.g., explanation; violated expectation; parallel)
Wenyi gave FRED…
34
Exp2: Discussion
Native speakers•Expectations based on Aspect and Prosody
Ø By assumption – need online evidence for verification
Non-‐native speakers •Prosodic effect, but is it anticipatory, and is it really driven by information structure?Ø Let’s test a case less easily explained by simple prosodic prominence
35
Experiment 3: Spoken story continuationContrastive prosody on pronoun
Schafer et al., 2015-‐BUCLD poster, in prep.
36
Exp3: Stimuli and design2 (aspect) x 2 (prosody) design
COMPLETED EVENT (PERFECTIVE)David served Paul a pint of beer. He obviously _______________David served Paul a pint of beer. HE obviously _______________
ONGOING EVENT (IMPERFECTIVE)David was serving Paul a pint of beer. He obviously ____________David was serving Paul a pint of beer. HE obviously ___________
• Spoken prompts, which include adverbs to allow natural truncation• Adverbs fit with explanations, common with Source & Goal ref.
Latin square design, 5 items/condition + 20 fillers(10 verbs: bring, e-‐mail, feed, give, hand, pass, present, roll, serve, throw)
37
Exp3: StimuliDavid served Paul a pint of beer.
Unstressed pronoun: Stressed pronoun:He obviously ___ HE obviously ___
38
Exp2 vs. Exp3: Comparison…
• L+H* L-‐H% prosodic manipulation; similar realization• Co-‐reference of target pronoun to Source/Goal
Exp 2: Source contrast: Exp 3: Stressed pronoun:DavidSource served… HE obviously ___
39
… and contrast
Exp2• L+H* L-‐H% on an earlier referent (e.g., David) à•Multiple ways to achieve Prosodic BoostØ Prosodic focus draws reference
Exp3• L+H* L-‐H% on target pronoun (e.g., HE) à•Cannot rely on Prosodic boostØ Prosodic focus expected to shift reference
40
Exp3: Specific prosodic hypotheses• Form effect?• Fuller expression à Reference to less salient entity(Gundel et al., 1993) ØMore non-‐subject (i.e., Goal) reference with stressed pronoun
• ‘Flip’ effect?• Choose a contextually plausible alternative to the referent preferred for an unstressed pronoun (Hirschberg & Ward, 1991; Kameyama, 1999) Ø Stressed pronoun flips preference of unstressed pronoun
• Coherence effect?• Anticipate plausible coherence for the focal structure; choose reference accordingly (Cummins & Rohde, 2015; Kehler, 2005; Kehler et al., 2008) ØMore causality in continuationsØ Difficulty for non-‐native speakers
41
Exp3: Co-‐reference results42
Native speakers:Aspect: significantProsody: significant
Non-‐native:Aspect: n.s.Prosody: n.s.Asp*Pros: significantPairwise:Ø Aspect for unstr: sigØ Stress for imperf: marg.
ØContrastive prosody IS difficult for non-‐native speakers when it requires more complex processing
L1 L2
Imperf. Perf. Imperf. Perf.0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Prop
. of S
ourc
e re
fere
nce Pronoun stress
UnstressedStressed
Exp3: Discussion
•Significant effect of prosody only for native speakersNon-‐native speakers:Ø Difficulty with higher-‐level decisions about information structure and/or expectations for coherence
•Reduced effect of Aspect in non-‐native speakers àincremental processing effect• Aspect is n.s. for Stressed pronoun: HE <pause> obviously
Ø Reference is determined during the pause• Effect of Aspect for Unstressed pronoun: He obviously
Ø Draw on Aspect when constructing the VP
43
Prosody and co-‐reference: Summary so far
Native speakers• Effects of contrastive prosody in both experiments
Non-‐native speakers• Effects only when it was on a potential antecedentØ Success in using contrastive prosody may depend on the complexity and timing of steps required to make the relevant mappings
Ø Need online evidence to better understand group differences and potential anticipatory effects
44
Part 2: Visual world experimentsWhat happens during the silence between sentences?
Will we see expectations for next-‐mention before the continuation begins?
45
Visual world paradigm
•Spoken story + comprehension question•Visual scene depicts entities in the story•Gaze is tracked as the story unfolds•Captures dynamic changes in attention to entities
46
1st sentence:'Donald brought
Melissaa fancy drink.'
[Silence]
2nd sentence:'REF obviouslyliked hosting
parties.'
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
−4000 −2000 0 2000Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks
AOISourceGoalTheme
Experiment 4: Visual world paradigmAspect (with broad focus)
Grüter, Takeda, Rohde & Schafer, 2016, 2017, in prep.
47
Exp4: Participants
Age(in years)
VersantEnglish Test1(overall score, range 20-‐80)
LexTALEEnglish2(% correct)
Self-‐ratedEnglish
proficiency(out of 10)
L1-‐English(n=54) 23 (18-‐49) -‐-‐ -‐-‐ 9 (6-‐10)
L2-‐English (n=35) 28 (18-‐46) 60 (39-‐80) 71 (49-‐100) 6 (1-‐9)
• Various L1s: 19 Chinese, 4 Japanese, 2 Spanish, 2 Indonesian, 8 other• First exposure to English M = 11 yrs (3-‐21)• Performed similarly to participants in Exp1 on the ‘Knowledge-‐of-‐Aspect’ task
1Pearson (2011; http://www.versanttest.com), 2Lemhöfer & Broersma (2012; www.lextale.com)
48
Exp4: Stimuli and design
5 items/condition (Latin square) = 20 experimental items; 40 non-‐transfer fillers
49
• 2 (aspect) x 2 (reference) design
Context (completed/ongoing)Donald { brought / was bringing } Melissa a fancy drink.
Continuation (pronoun gender matches Source/Goal){ HeDonald / SheMelissa } obviously liked hosting parties.
Exp4: Trial structure
preview [2000ms]
context Donald brought Melissa a fancy drink.
silence [2500ms]
continuation He obviously liked hosting parties.pause [250ms]
[1500ms]
question Who liked hosting parties?
{mouseclick on box corresponding to answer}
50
Exp4: Predictions
Following a transfer-‐of-‐possession event and prior to the encounter of a referential expression,
1) Native speakers will look at the Goal more following perfective than imperfective verbs;
2) Non-‐native speakers’ looks will not be modulated by aspect.
51
collapsing over Aspect and Reference
Exp4: Eyegaze overview(N = 54 native speakers of English)
1st sentence:'Donald brought
Melissaa fancy drink.'
[Silence]
2nd sentence:'REF obviouslyliked hosting
parties.'
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
−4000 −2000 0 2000Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks
AOISourceGoalTheme
52
collapsing over Reference
[Silence]'REF obviously liked
hosting parties.'
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
−2000 −1000 0 1000 2000Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks
AOI−AspectSource−Perf.Source−Imperf.
53
Native speakers, looks to Source by Aspect
collapsing over Reference
[Silence]'REF obviously liked
hosting parties.'
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
−2000 −1000 0 1000 2000Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks
AOI−AspectSource−Perf.Goal−Perf.Source−Imperf.Goal−Imperf.
Native speakers, looks to Source & Goal
54
Analysis region: -‐2000 to 200
Native speakers:Aspect: significant
Exp4: Native versus non-‐native speakers
55
à Non-‐native speakers do not show an anticipatory effect of Aspect...…but they do show an anticipatory bias toward the Goal
[Silence]2nd sentence:
'REF obviously liked hosting parties.'
[Silence]2nd sentence:
'REF obviously liked hosting parties.'
L1 L2
−2000 −1000 0 1000 2000 −2000 −1000 0 1000 20000.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks AOI−AspectSource−Perf.Goal−Perf.Source−Imperf.Goal−Imperf.
Exp4: Discussion
•Anticipatory effect of Aspect in the native speakers, but not in the non-‐native group•Anticipatory Goal bias, consistent with the semantics of transfer-‐of-‐possession verbs, in both groups.
Ø Non-‐native speakers are able to create discourse-‐level expectations based on verb semantics, but they may not be able to use the grammatical-‐aspect cue to dynamically update their expectations.
56
Exp5: Story structurePreambleThe party was held at a bar near Emily, Melissa and Kira’s house.
Context (2 x 3 design)Emily brought Melissa a fancy drink.
Continuation (ambig. pronoun/Goal name, between items){She/Melissa} obviously liked hosting parties.
58
Exp5: Context sentence• 2 (aspect) x 3 (prosody) design
COMPLETED EVENT (PERFECTIVE)EMILY brought Melissa a fancy drink. Emily brought Melissa a fancy drink. Emily brought MELISSA a fancy drink.
ONGOING EVENT (IMPERFECTIVE)EMILY was bringing Melissa a fancy drink. Emily was bringing Melissa a fancy drink. Emily was bringing MELISSA a fancy drink.
59
Latin square design, 3 items/condition = 18 experimental items; 36 fillers
Exp5: Discourse information
Preambles•Mention an alternative entity to the Source and Goal argumentsà should ease the construction of an alternative set (e.g., EMILY, not Kira)
• Allow identification of Source and Goal entities to take place before the context sentence• Provide context for the critical ongoing/completed event
Visual scene• Depicts the 3rd human and an alternative theme, providing concrete options for contrasting sentencese.g.: Emily brought Melissa a fancy drink. She gave Kira a noisemaker.
61
Exp5: Trial structure
preamble The party was held at a bar near Emily, Melissa and Kira’s house.
silence [2500ms]context EMILY was bringing Melissa a fancy
drink.silence [2500ms]continuation She obviously liked hosting parties.silence [500ms]
[2000ms]question Who liked hosting parties?
{mouseclick on box corresponding to answer}
62
Exp5: PredictionsAspect• Replicate the patterns found in Exp2 and Exp4
Ø Native speakers will look at the Goal more following perfective than imperfective verbs.
Ø Non-‐native speakers’ looks will not be modulated by aspect
Prosody• Effects in both groups during the continuation (cf. Exp2) • During the silent region, native speakers will increase their looks to prosodically focused antecedents• Non-‐native speakers’ looks during the silent region will not be modulated by prosody
63
But note: the preambles could facilitate the generation of expectations in each group
collapsing over Group, Aspect, and Prosody
Exp5: Eyegaze overview(N = 47 native speakers; 19 non-‐native – unbalanced across lists)
64
Preamble +silence
[last 1000 ms]
Context sentence:'Emily brought Melissa
a fancy drink.'[silence]
Continuation:'[Ref] obviously liked
hosting parties.'
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
−5000 −2500 0Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks AOISourceGoalThemeAlt. theme3rd human
(preliminary data)
Exp5: Focus, context regionSource focus Broad focus Goal focus
NativeNon−native
−6000 −5000 −4000 −3000 −2000 −6000 −5000 −4000 −3000 −2000 −6000 −5000 −4000 −3000 −2000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks
ProsodySource focusBroad focusGoal focus
AOISourceGoalTheme
65
(preliminary data)
à In both groups, prosodic focus increases looks to the focused entity
Exp5: Aspect, silence + continuation
[silence]Continuation:
'[Ref] obviously liked hosting parties.'
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
−3000 −2000 −1000 0 1000 2000Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks AOI−AspectGoal*−Perf.Goal*−Imperf.Source*−Perf.Source*−Imperf.
66
collapsing over Group and Prosody
(preliminary data)
Goal*= Goal + ThemeSource*= all other AOIs
à Collapsing over group and prosody, an anticipatory pattern for Aspect during the silent region
Analysis region
Non−native
Native
−3000 −2000 −1000 0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks AOI−AspectGoal*−Perf.Goal*−Imperf.Source*−Perf.Source*−Imperf.
67
Non−native
Native
−3000 −2000 −1000 0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time from pronoun onset (ms)
Prop
. loo
ks AOI−FocusGoal*−Goal focusGoal*−Source focusSource*−Goal focusSource*−Source focus
Aspect * Group:theme + silence region
Focus * Group: theme + silence region
(preliminary data)
Not shown: Broad focus
à Aspect pattern in both groups
à Prosody differs by group
Exp5: Discussion (tentative)
❓Anticipatory effect of aspect in both groups?❓Aspect effect emerges in non-‐native speakers with the presence of preambles, which reduce the processing load during the context sentence?
❓Prosody during silence: too early to say… stay tuned!(these preliminary data are unbalanced across lists for the prosody factor, especially for the non-‐native group)
68
General discussion and conclusionNative speakers• Use aspect and prosody to determine reference• Anticipate reference on the basis of aspect… and maybe prosody
Non-‐native speakers• Show a reduced ability (weaker tendency) to generate expectations…which is modulated by cue strength and processing demands• Show difficulty with higher-‐level decisions about information structure (including focus-‐sensitive expectations for coherence relations)Ø Converging evidence with Takeda et al, 2015; Nakamura, Symposium talk
Overall• Discourse processing draws on multiple sources of information• Shaped by the combination of linguistic knowledge, real-‐world knowledge, and processing resources
Ø Research value in carefully considering details of linguistic representations and online process of constructing/anticipating them
69
Thanks to all of you, and…• NSF Standard Grant BCS-‐1251450• Co-‐authors: Theres Grüter, Hannah Rohde, Amber Camp, Wenyi Ling, and Aya Takeda• Fabulous RAs at the University of Hawai‘i:
Bonnie Fox, Catherine Gardiner, Uy-‐Di Nancy Le, Victoria Lee, Maho Takahashi, and (not pictured) A. Blake, Ivana Matson, Eric Stepans, and Alexis Toliva
70
ReferencesArnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4,
187-‐203.Braun, B. & Tagliapietra, L. (2011). On-‐line interpretation of intonational meaning in L2. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 26, 224-‐235.Carlson, K. (2001). The effects of parallelism and prosody in the processing of gapping sentences. Language
and Speech, 44, 1-‐26.Carlson, K. (2002). Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. New York: Routledge.Chambers, C. G., & Cooke, H. (2009). Lexical competition during second-‐language listening: Sentence
context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 1029–1040.
Constant, N. (2012). English rise-‐fall-‐rise: A study in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation. Ling. and Philosophy, 35, 407-‐442.
Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress: effects on pragmatic enrichment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.
Cutler, A. & Foss, D. J. (1977). On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 20, 1-‐10.
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-‐language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292-‐314.
Dennison, H. (2010). Processing implied meaning through contrastive prosody. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univeristy of Hawaii, Manoa.
Dennison, H. & Schafer, A. J. (2017). Processing intonationally implicated contrast versus negation in American English. Language and Speech, 60, 174-‐199.
Ferretti, T. R., Rohde, H., Kehler, A., & Crutchley, M. (2009). Verb aspect, event structure, and coreferentialprocessing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 191-‐205.
Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how contrastive contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 367-‐386.
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2014). The role of discourse-‐level expectations in non-‐native speakers' referential choices. In W. Orman & M. J. Valleau (Eds.) Proceedings of the 38th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD). (pp. 179-‐191). Cascadilla: Somerville, MA.
71
References cont.Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of
grammatical aspect and referential form. Lnguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in
discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. Hirschberg, J. & Ward, G. (1991). Accent and bound anaphora. Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 101-‐121. Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-‐90.Husband, E. M., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(2), 217-‐235.Ito, K. & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual
search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 541-‐73.Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 4, 257–282. Kameyama, M. (1999). Stressed and unstressed pronouns: complementary preferences. In P. Bosch and R.
van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. (pp. 306–21). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. J. of Semantics 25,
1-‐44.Kim, K., Grüter, T. & Schafer, A. J. (2013, March). Effects of event-‐structure and topic/focus-‐marking on
pronoun reference in Korean. Poster presented at the 26th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Columbia, SC.
Kim, K., Grüter, T. & Schafer, A. J. (2014, March). Effects of morphological and prosodic focus cues on topic maintenance in Korean. Poster presented at the 27th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Columbus, OH.
Kurumada, C., Brown, M., Bibyk, S., Pontillo, D. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Is it or isn’t it: Listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings. Cognition, 133, 335-‐342.
72
References cont.Rohde, H., Kehler, A., & Elman, J. L. (2006). Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun
interpretation. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 617-‐622). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Sem. & Prag., 5, 1-‐69.
Schafer, A. J., Carter, J., Clifton Jr., C., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-‐63.
Schafer, A. J., Takeda, A., Camp, A., Rohde, H., & Grüter, T. (2015). Effects of contrastive intonation and grammatical aspect on processing coreference in Mainstream American English. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, Scotland.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1-‐33.
Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax-‐phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649-‐689.
Takeda, A., Anderson, V., Schafer, A. J., & Schwartz, B. D. (2015). Non-‐native speakers’ sensitivity to prosodic marking of information structure. Poster presented at the 28th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Los Angeles, CA.
Takeda, A., Schafer, A. J. & Schwartz, B. D. (2015). L2 online sensitivity to English prosodic marking of new and contrastive discourse status. Talk presented at the 40th BUCLD, Boston, MA.
Ueno, M., & Kehler, A. (2010). The interpretation of null and overt pronouns in Japanese: Grammatical and pragmatic factors. In S. Ohlsson and R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2057-‐2062). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
Ueno, M., & Kehler, A. (2016). Grammatical and pragmatic factors in Japanese pronoun interpretation. Linguistics, 54, 1165-‐1221.
73