Pupillary responses reflect ambiguity resolution in pronoun processing

Abstract

The resolution of ambiguous pronouns is influenced by the preceding linguistic discourse. This raises the question whether the processing of an object pronoun is also influenced by the preceding sentential subject. In an experiment with Dutch adults, we recorded pupil dilation as a measure of the cognitive effort involved in resolving pronominal versus full noun phrase (NP) subjects and pronominal versus reflexive objects. Our results indicate that more effort is needed to resolve a pronominal subject or object compared to a less ambiguous full NP subject or reflexive object. These results support the hypothesis that the ambiguity of a referring expression influences processing. Contrary to our expectations, no evidence was found that the form of the subject influences the processing of a subsequent pronominal object. We conclude that pupillary responses reflect ambiguity resolution in pronoun processing, and that the process to resolve pronouns commences as soon as the pronoun is encountered. ARTICLE HISTORY

Reasoning about alternative forms is costly: The processing of null and overt pronouns in Italian using pupillary responses

“…By means of pupil dilation measures, we examine the cost of online processing of different kinds of anaphoric subjects: non-pronominal full NPs such as the hedgehog, the overt pronouns lui 'he' and lei 'she', and null subjects. We compare the results of our Italian study to the results from the Dutch study by Vogelzang et al (2016). Both experiments recorded responses, response times, and pupil dilation during a referent selection task.…”

“…Overt pronoun subjects were less frequently interpreted as referring to the topic than unambiguous full NP subjects, indicating that although listeners have a very strong tendency to interpret an overt pronoun as referring to the discourse topic (93%), non-topical interpretations are allowed occasionally. Moreover, interpretation questions about Dutch overt pronouns were answered slower than questions about full NPs (Vogelzang et al, 2016).…”

“…Additionally, a cross-linguistic comparison will be carried out to investigate whether similar forms have different meanings in languages which differ in their availability of alternative forms. To this end, the results from the experimental study in Italian will be compared to the results from Vogelzang et al (2016) on the processing and interpretation of anaphoric subjects in the non-null-subject language Dutch.…”

“…We will investigate this by comparing the interpretation and processing of anaphoric subjects in Italian to the non-null-subject language Dutch. The data on Dutch are described in detail in Vogelzang et al (2016), and will briefly be discussed below.…”

“…In their study on anaphoric processing in Dutch, Vogelzang et al (2016) compared the interpretation and processing of overt pronouns to that of full NPs, which unambiguously referred to the discourse topic. Overt pronoun subjects were less frequently interpreted as referring to the topic than unambiguous full NP subjects, indicating that although listeners have a very strong tendency to interpret an overt pronoun as referring to the discourse topic (93%), non-topical interpretations are allowed occasionally.…”