The Degree of Commitment to the Initial Analysis Predicts the Cost of Reanalysis: Evidence from Japanese Garden-Path Sentences

Transcription

1 P3-26 The Degree of Commitment to the Initial Analysis Predicts the Cost of Reanalysis: Evidence from Japanese Garden-Path Sentences Chie Nakamura, Manabu Arai Keio University, University of Tokyo, JSPS Abstract Previous research demonstrated that comprehenders of head-final languages do not delay associating pre-head arguments until the head is received. As a consequence, readers are sometimes forced to reanalyze a structure due to an incorrect pre-head attachment. It is, however, still unclear what makes comprehenders of head-final languages to commit to pre-head attachment and to experience processing difficulty when a sentence is disambiguated. The current study addressed this issue by testing Japanese relative clause structure. We conducted two reading experiments using eye-tracking technique. The results demonstrated that both semantic information and temporal delay of disambiguation point influenced the degree of comprehenders commitment to the incorrect initial analysis and the amount of cost for structural reanalysis. Keywords Garden-path sentence, initial analysis, reanalysis, eye-tracking, reading, relative clause structure 1,,, [1,2]., [3,4], Tabor and Hutching (2004) (1a) (1b), (1b) (1a),, (Digging-in effect) [5]. (1a) As the author wrote the book grew. (1b) As the author wrote the book describing Babylon grew.,,, (1b) (1a), 1 2, 718

2 P , Plausibility: High Plausibility: Low, RC Length: Short RC Length: Long 2 4, , (Eye Link II, SR Research),.,, , (Plausibility: High ), (Plausibility: Low ), (RC Length: Short, Long ) 2 2 (2a-2d)., 24, c. (Long + High ) 2d. (Long + Low ) 2.2, 1200ms 80ms [4]., First-pass reading time Second-pass reading time 2 First-pass reading time,, Second-pass reading time,,,, First-pass reading time, Second-pass reading time, Linear Mixed-Effects: LME [6,7]. 2 5, Plausibility High Low RC Length Short Long,. 2a.. (Short + High ) 2b.. (Short + Low ) First-pass reading times. 2 Plausibility (β = 29.2, t = 3.64, p < 0.001), Low High 3 719

3 P3-26 RC Length (β = 22.6, t = 10.86, p < 0.001),. 5 RC Length Plausibility (β = 19.2, t = 3.21, p < 0.01)., Plausibility, Low High (β = 18.7, t = 9.93, p = 0.07), Low (β = -19.2, t = 1.93, p = 0.06)., Regression-out, (Long + High ) (0.42), Second pass reading times. 2 RC-Length (β = 61.2, t = 4.65, p < 0.001),, 3 5, Plausibility ( 3: β = , t = 3.41, p < 0.01; 4: β = -37.9, t = 3.22, p < 0.01; 5: β = -44.2, t = 3.60, p < 0.001),, RC Length ( 3: β = 455.1, t = 8.67, p < 0.001; 4: β = 36.0, t = 3.32, p < 0.05; 5: β = , t = 3.46, p = 0.07),,., 3 Plausibility RC Length (β = -86.8, t = 2.35, p < 0.05),, Long, Short Plausibility (Long : β = , t = 3.63, p < 0.001; Short : β = -50.9, t = 2.41, p < 0.05) , (Plausibility: High ), (Plausibility: Low ),,., 3 Second-pass reading time, 5 First-pass reading time, Plausibility RC Length,,,,, , 720

4 P Plausibility (High Low ),, (Word Order: NP-Adjunct ), (Word Order: Adjunct-NP ) (3a-3d)., 24, a.. (High + NP-Adjunct ) 3b.. (High + Adjunct-NP ) 3c.. (Low + NP-Adjunct ) 3d.. (Low + Adjunct-NP ) 3.2 Plausibility High Low Word Order NP-Adjunct Adjunct-NP LME forward-selection., Right-bounded reading time Second-pass reading time 2 second-pass reading time, Word Order (β = -0.08, t = 2.21, p < 0.001),, NP-Adjunct e.g.,,, Adjunct-NP e.g.,., 4 right-bounded reading time Plausibility Word Order (β = 0.05, t = 2.30, p < 0.05)., NP-Adjunct Plausibility (β = 38.35, t = 2.13, p < 0.05), Adjunct-NP Plausibility (β = 3.40, t = 0.29, p = 0.59) ,, NP-Adjunct, Adjunct-NP, 4 Plausibility Word Order,,, (High ), (Low ) Plausibility, NP-Adjunct, Adjunct-NP, NP-Adjunct, Adjunct-NP,, Plausibility 721

5 P , 1,. 2, 1, [1] Kamide, Y. (2006). Incrementality in Japanese sentence processing. In M. Nakayama, R. Mazuka & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese psycholinguistics; Cambridge University Press. [2] Miyamoto, E. T Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, [3] Ferreira, F.,& Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, [4] Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, [5] Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, [6] Βaayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [7] Βaayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Βates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59,