Везде
Experimental studies of grammar: anaphora resolution in speech comprehension
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Experimental studies of grammar: anaphora resolution in speech comprehension
Annotation
PII
S0373658X0003700-9-
DOI
10.31857/S0373658X0003700-9
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Veronika Prokopenya 
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: St. Petersburg, 101000
Natalia Slioussar
Affiliation:
St. Petersburg State University
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Address: St. Petersburg, 101000; Moscow, 199034
Tatiana Petrova
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: St. Petersburg, 199034
Daria Chernova
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: 199034
Tatiana Chernigovskaya
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: 199034
Edition
Issue 1
Pages
76-90
Abstract

This paper addresses one of the central problems in mental grammar studies — the problem of modularity in anaphoric processing. Our study is based on Reuland’s model “Primitives of binding” arguing that anaphoric relations can be established in three independent language modules: syntax, semantics, and discourse. These modules work sequentially: from the most economic syntax to the least economic discourse. We conducted a series of experiments with healthy adult native speakers of Russian (control group), 4-5 year old children with no speech problems, and participants with agrammatic aphasia. Pronoun interpretation in sentences where syntactic and semantic analyses lead to different interpretations was studied. We found that children and adults with aphasia rely on semantic analysis in cases where the control group relies only on syntax.

Keywords
anaphora resolution, aphasia, binding theory, mental grammar, pronouns, speech comprehension
Received
02.07.2018
Date of publication
02.07.2018
Number of purchasers
8
Views
602
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Previous versions
S0373658X0003700-9-1 Дата внесения правок в статью - 15.01.2019
Cite   Download pdf

References

1. Arutyunova 1982 — Arutyunova N. D. Linguistic problems of reference // Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. No. 13. Moscow: Progress, 1982. Pp. 5—40.

2. Akhutina 2012 — Akhutina T. V. Porozhdenie rechi. Neirolingvisticheskii analiz sintaksisa [Speech production. Neurolinguistic analysis of syntax] Moscow: URSS, 2012.

3. Gvozdev 1990 — Gvozdev A. N. Razvitie slovarnogo zapasa v pervye gody zhizni rebenka [Expansion of the child’s vocabulary size during the first years]. Saratov: Saratov Univ. Publ., 1990.

4. Luria 1975 — Luria A. R. Osnovnye problemy neirolingvistiki [Major issues of neurolinguistics]. Moscow: Moscow State Univ. Publ., 1975.

5. Nasledov 2004 — Nasledov A. D. Matematicheskie metody psikhologicheskogo issledovaniya. Analiz i interpretatsiya dannykh [Mathematical methods of psychological research. Analysis and interpretation of data]. St. Petersburg: Rech’, 2004.

6. Paducheva 1985 — Paducheva E. V. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost’ s deistvitel’nost’yu [Utterance and its correlation with reality]. Moscow: Nauka, 1985.

7. Paducheva 2009 — Paducheva E. V. Stat’i raznykh let [Articles of various years]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, 2009.

8. Prokopenya2016a — Prokopenya V. K. Special aspects of processing and interpretation of sentences with referential ambiguity. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiiskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya. 2016. No. 1(33). Pp. 21—30.

9. Prokopenya 2016b — Prokopenya V. K. The role of referent’s syntactic position in determination of anaphoric relations in the situation of referential ambiguity. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2016. No. 4—1(58). Pp. 142—145.

10. Pupynin 1996 — Pupynin Yu. A. Learning the system of Russian verbal forms by a child (earlier stages). Voprosy jazykoznanija. 1996. No. 3. Pp. 84—94.

11. Fedorova 2014 — Fedorova O. V. Eksperimental’nyi analiz diskursa [Experimental analysis of discourse]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2014.

12. Khrakovskaya 2017 — Khrakovskaya M. G. A faziya. Agnoziya. Apraksiya. Metodiki vosstanovleniya [Aphasia. Agnosia. Apraxia. Rehabilitation methods]. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2017.

13. Tseitlin 2000 — Tseitlin S. N. Yazyk i rebenok: lingvistika detskoi rechi [Language and child: Linguistics of child speech]. Moscow: VLADOS, 2000.

14. Chernigovskaya, Prokopenya 2015 — Chernigovskaya T. V., Prokopenya V. K. Interpretation of context as a characteristic of structurа non-linearity of the mental grammar: Experimental research of reference. Nelineinaya dinamika v kognitivnykh issledovaniyakh — 2015. Trudy IV Vserossiiskoi konferentsii. Nizhnii Novgorod: Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2015. Pp. 266—269.

15. Shmelev 1996 — Shmelev A. D. Referentsial’nye mekhanizmy russkogo yazyka [Referential mechanisms of the Russian language]. Tampere: Tampere Univ., 1996.

16. Akhutina 2003 — Akhutina T. V. Is agrammatism an anomaly? Journal of Russian and East European Psychology. 2003. Vol. 41. Pp. 75—95.

17. Akhutina 2016 — Akhutina T. V. Luria’s classification of aphasias and its theoretical basis. Aphasiology. 2016. Vol. 30. No. 8. Pp. 878—897.

18. Ariel 2001 — Ariel M. Accessibility theory: An overview. Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Sanders T. J. M., Schilperoord J., Spooren W. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Рp. 29—87.

19. Arnold, Griffin 2007 — Arnold J. E., Griffin Z. M. The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language. 2007. Vol. 56. Pp. 521—536.

20. Avrutin et al. 2001 — Avrutin S., Haverkort M., van Hout A. Language acquisition and language breakdown. Brain and Language. 2001. Vol. 77. No. 3. Pp. 269—273.

21. Boeckx et al. 2008 — Boeckx C., Hornstein N., Nunes J. Copy-reflexive and copy-control constructions: A movement analysis. Linguistic variation yearbook. Vol. 8. Craenenbroek J. V. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Pp. 61—100.

22. Burkhardt et al. 2003 — Burkhardt P., Piñango M., Wong K. The role of the anterior left hemisphere in real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence form split intransitivity. Brain and Language. 2003. Vol. 86. No. 1. Pp. 9—22.

23. Chambers, Smyth 1998 — Chambers G. C., Smyth R. Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of centering theory. Journal of Memory and Language. 1998. Vol. 39. Pp. 593—608.

24. Chomsky 1981 — Chomsky N. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1981.

25. Crain, Thornton 1998 — Crain S., Thornton R. Investigations in universal grammar. A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1998.

26. Fodor 1983 — Fodor J. A. The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1983.

27. Frazier, Fodor 1978 — Frazier L., Fodor J. D. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 1978. Vol. 6. No. 4. Pp. 291—325.

28. Fukumura, van Gompel 2010 — Fukumura K., van Gompel P. G. Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language. 2010. Vol. 62. Pp. 52—66.

29. Gernsbacher, Hargreaves 1988 — Gernsbacher M. A., Hargreaves D. J. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language. 1988. Vol. 27. Pp. 699—717.

30. Grodzinsky 1999 — Grodzinsky Y. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Brain and Behavioral Science. 1999. Vol. 23. Pp. 47—117.

31. Grodzinsky et al. 1993 — Grodzinsky Y., Wexler K., Chien Y.-C., Marakovitz S., Solomon J. The breakdown of binding relations. Brain and Language. 1993. Vol. 45. No. 3. Pp. 371—395.

32. Grosz et al. 1995 — Grosz B. J., Joshi A., Weinstein S. Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics. 1995. Vol. 21. Pp. 203—226.

33. Hornstein 2001 — Hornstein N. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

34. Järvikivi et al. 2005 — Järvikivi J., van Gompel R., Hyönä J., Bertram R. Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first mention and subject preference accounts. Psychological Science. 2005. Vol. 16. Pp. 260—264.

35. Jakobson 1968 — Jakobson R. Child language, aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton, 1968.

36. Kayne 2002 — Kayne R. S. Pronouns and their antecedents. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Epstein S. D., Seely T. D. (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Pp. 133—167.

37. Kibrik 2011 — Kibrik A. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011.

38. Kibrik et al. 2016 — Kibrik A. A., Khudyakova M. V., Dobrov G. B., Linnik A., Zalmanov D. A. Referential choice: Predictability and its limits. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016. Vol 7. Pp. 1—21.

39. Kimball 1973 — Kimball J. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition. 1973. Vol. 2. No. 1. Pp. 15—47.

40. Kolk 2001 — Kolk H. Does agrammatic speech constitute a regression to child language? A three-way comparison between agrammatic, child, and normal ellipsis. Brain and Language. 2001. Vol. 77. No. 3. Pp. 340—350.

41. Lukatela et al. 1995 — Lukatela K., Shankweiller D., Crain S. Syntactic processing in agrammatic aphasia by speakers of a Slavic language. Brain and Language. 1995. Vol. 49. No. 1. Pp. 50—76.

42. Penke 2001 — Penke M. Controversies about CP: A comparison of language acquisition and language impairments in Broc’s aphasia. Brain and Language. 2001. Vol. 77. No. 3. Pp. 351—363.

43. Philip, Avrutin 1998 — Philip W., Avrutin S. Quantification in agrammatic aphasia. The interpretive tract. Sauerland U., Percus O. (eds.). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1998. Pp. 63—72.

44. Philip 1995 — Philip W. Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification. Amherst: Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst, 1995.

45. Reinhart, Reuland 1993 — Reinhart T., Reuland E. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry. 1993. Vol. 24. Pp. 657—720.

46. Reuland 2001 — Reuland E. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry. 2001. Vol. 32. Pp. 439—492.

47. Reuland 2011 — Reuland E. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 2011.

48. Rhee, Wexler 1995 — Rhee J., Wexler K. Optional infinitives in Hebrew. MIT Working Papers In Linguistics. 1995. Vol. 26. Pp. 383—402.

49. Ribot 1881 — Ribot T. Les maladies de la memoire. Paris: Germer Bailliere, 1881.

50. Ruigendijk et al. 2006 — Ruigendijk E., Vasić N., Avrutin S. Reference assignment: Using language breakdown to choose between theoretical approaches. Brain and Language. 2006. Vol. 96. No. 3. Pp. 302—317.

51. Ruigendijk et al. 2011 — Ruigendijk E., Baauw S., Zuckerman S., Vasic N. A cross-linguistic study on the interpretation of pronouns by children and agrammatic speakers: Evidence from Dutch, Spanish and Italian. The processing and acquisition of reference. Gibson E., Pearlmutter N. J. (eds.). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 2011. Pp. 133—156.

52. Safir 2004 — Safir K. J. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004.

53. Stevenson et al. 1994 — Stevenson R., Crawley R., Kleinman D. Thematic roles, focusing and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1994. Vol. 9. Pp. 519—548.

54. Wexler 1994 — Wexler K. Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivation in child grammar. Verb movement. Lightfoot D., Hornstein N. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994. Pp. 305—350.

55. Wijnen et al. 2001 — Wijnen F., Kempen M., Gillis S. Root infinitives in Dutch early child language: An effect of input? Journal of Child Language. 2001. Vol. 28. No. 3. Pp. 629—660.

56. Zurif et al. 1993 — Zurif E., Swinney D., Prather P., Solomon J., Bushell C. An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language. 1993. Vol. 45. No. 3. Pp. 448—464.

57. Zwart 2002 — Zwart J. Issues related to a derivational theory of binding. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Epstein S. D., Seely T. D. (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Pp. 269—304.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate