Origins of Modularity

1. Origins of Modularity

2. Preliminary Binding Study • Results • 13 participants tested using Linger • Data can be analyzed using Lingalyzer Lite • Region encoding needs to be added (perl script, Excel?) • Short-term objective: means & standard errors, accuracy • Longer-term objective • Fine-tune experimental items • Test with naïve participants • ANOVA analyses

3. Regions

4. Statistical Analyses • Raw vs. residual reading times • ANOVA • MS = s2 = SS/df • F-ratio = MSbetween/MSwithin • Interaction in 2-way ANOVA: between group variance that is not accounted for by main effects • Repeated Measures ANOVA • Intuitively: are all subjects/items affected similarly by the experimental factor? • Statistically: F = MSrepeated-measure/MSinteraction • Power of subjects analysis depends on number of items, and vice versa

6. Effects of informational encapsulation due to • Architectural constraints • Computational constraints

7. (Trueswell et al. 1999)

8. Summary from Last Week • ‘Autonomy’ in Generation vs. Selection • Most evidence does not specifically identify effect of semantics/pragmatics on structure generation • What would needed for semantics to impact generation • In order to block generation of one analysis, semantic information must have its effect prior to the ambiguous input • E.g., anomaly of ‘the frog’ in multiple frog context triggers search for restrictive modifier • Requires a link from failure to resolve definite description to generation of specific structure • Predicts limited effects on generation, at best • Multiple referent contexts • NOT plausible combinations, e.g. evidence examined, warehouse fires

9. (Tanenhaus et al., 1995)

10. Implication • “Our results demonstrate that in natural contexts, people seek to establish reference with respect to their behavioral goals during the earliest moments of linguistic processing. Moreover, referentially relevant non-linguistic information immediately affects the manner in which the linguistic input is initially structured. Given these results, approaches to language comprehension that assign a central role to encapsulated linguistic subsystems are unlikely to prove fruitful.” (p. 1634) • Do these results imply strong interactivity? (Tanenhaus et al., 1995)

11. How Representative are VW Studies? • Strong context effects occur in narrowly constrained situations, where • Prior material generates expectation for one variant of an ambiguity, with sufficient specificity to predict individual words • Context is constrained enough such that • Specific expectation can be elicited (i.e. notice ‘Oops, there are two apples in this scene, which one can he be referring to?’) • There is a good understanding of what are the relevant objects in the visual context • “… visual stimuli can combine with linguistic stimuli in a manner that effectively constrains the referential domain in ways that may be unrepresentative of the challenges that readers and listeners face when dealing language about displaced objects and events” (Pickering, McElree, & Garrod, 2004)

12. “Second, the effects of the objects on processing an utterance may be exacerbated by the small number of objects presented (typically about four). Presumably, small sets are necessary because larger sets would increase memory demands (both for the retention of the objects and their locations) and would dilute effects. However, small sets enable particular strategies that may be optimal for the experimental task but not necessarily representative of general operations involved in processing language. For instance, participants may circumvent standard processing operations by developing strategies based on a limited number of representations held in working memory. Immediate effects that depend on properties of the paradigm cannot be used to provide strong support for interactive theories of comprehension.” (Pickering, McElree, & Garrod, 2004)

13. (Trueswell et al. 1999)

14. (Trueswell et al. 1999)

15. (Trueswell et al. 1999)

16. Adult “Put the hippo on the towel in the basket” “Put the bear on the plate in the box” (Trueswell et al. 1999)

17. 5-year Old “Put the frog on the napkin in the pot” “Put the hippo on the towel in the basket” (Trueswell et al. 1999)

18. Kindergarten Path Effect • Why are the children failing to act as adults do on the 2-referent context? • Overall VP-attachment bias, stronger than adults (due to minimal attachment, or to statistical bias of put for a location argument) • Unable to take advantage of referential context • Insensitive to definiteness • Unable to revise initial commitments/plans of action

19. One Answer • Compare put and wiggle (2-referent contexts only, n=16) • Put the frog (that’s) on the napkin in the box. • Actions Ambig 55% Unambig 16% • Looks (n=8) Ambig 71% Unambig 44% • Wiggle the frog (that’s) on the napkin in the box. • Actions Ambig 23% Unambig 8% • Looks (n=8) Ambig 52% Unambig 38% (Trueswell et al. 1999)

20. Another Answer Modifier-bias Choose the cow with the stick. Equi-bias Feel the frog with the feather. Instrument-bias Tickle the pig with the fan. (Snedeker & Trueswell, in press)

21. Another Answer Modifier-bias Choose the cow with the stick. Equi-bias Feel the frog with the feather. Instrument-bias Tickle the pig with the fan. (Snedeker & Trueswell, in press)

22. Memory

23. The defendant examined by the lawyer… The evidence examined by the lawyer… (Just & Carpenter 1992)

24. The defendant examined by the lawyer… The evidence examined by the lawyer… (Just & Carpenter 1992)

25. The defendant examined by the lawyer… The evidence examined by the lawyer… (Just & Carpenter 1992)

26. The soup cooked in the pot but was not ready to eat. The soup bubbled in the pot but was not ready to eat. (Pearlmutter & MacDonald, 1995)

27. The soup cooked in the pot but was not ready to eat. The soup bubbled in the pot but was not ready to eat. (Pearlmutter & MacDonald, 1995)

28. The soup cooked in the pot but was not ready to eat. The soup bubbled in the pot but was not ready to eat. (Pearlmutter & MacDonald, 1995)

29. Processing Overload • RC/RC center embedding • The school board which the teachers who were neglecting the students had angered troubled the superintendent.

30. A Contrast (Gibson 1998) • Relative Clause within a Sentential Complement (RC SC): • The fact [CP that the employee [RC who the manager hired] stole office supplies] worried the executive. • Sentential Complement within aRelative Clause (SC  RC): • #The executive [RC who the fact [CP that the employee stole office supplies] worried] hired the manager. • RC  SC is easier to process than SC  RC

31. A Contrast (Gibson 1998) • Relative Clause within a Sentential Complement (RC SC): • [SC that the employee [RC who the manager hired] stole • Sentential Complement within aRelative Clause (SC  RC): • [RC who the fact [SC that the employee stole office supplies] worried] • RC  SC is easier to process than SC  RC

32. A Contrast (Gibson 1998) • Relative Clause within a Sentential Complement (RC SC): • [SC that the employee [RC who the manager hired] stole • Sentential Complement within aRelative Clause (SC  RC): • [RC who the fact [SC that the employee stole office supplies] worried] • RC  SC is easier to process than SC  RC

33. Complexity Measures • Memory cost associated with • Incomplete syntactic dependencies (prediction, memory cost) • Number • Length • Completion of syntactic dependencies (integration cost) • Number • Length (Gibson 1998)

34. Role in ambiguity resolution • Minimization of memory costs contribute to choice among alternative resolutions of an ambiguous structure • Prediction: when difference in memory costs is large, this factor overrides other factors

35. Plausibility • Grodner et al. 2002The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The witness who the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated seemed to be very nervous.The witness thought that the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated his next-door neighbor.

36. Plausibility • Grodner et al. 2002The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The witness who the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated seemed to be very nervous.The witness thought that the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated his next-door neighbor. Large syntactic difference overrides plausibility bias

37. (Grodner, Gibson & Tunstall, 2002)

38. Experiment 2: N-N compound vs. RC • PlausibleThe alley (which) mice run rampant in is damp and dimly lit but relatively clean. • ImplausibleThe tool (which) plumbers need to have is a good monkey wrench for loosening rusty pipes. (Grodner, Gibson & Tunstall, 2002)

39. (Grodner, Gibson & Tunstall, 2002)

40. Plausibility • Eastwick & Phillips, 2000The judge remembered that the document…stating that the [ defendant/evidence (that was) examined by the lawyer was unreliable ] …had been stolen from the filing cabinet.

45. Plausibility • Eastwick & Phillips, 2000The judge remembered that the document…had stated that the [ defendant/evidence (that was) examined by the lawyer was unreliable] …and should be withdrawn from the testimony

48. Architecture Again

49. Three Architectural Issues • Abstraction (fall) • Relation between language and conceptual/perceptual systems • Abstraction (in phonology, lexicon, syntax, etc.) allows for powerful & efficient combinatorial systems • …but exacts a cost for recognition and learning • Incrementality (winter) • Relation between systems for understanding, speaking, and acceptability judgments • Computation is fast, but how is this achieved? • Modularity (spring) • Relation between computations at different levels of representation • Various possible sources for constraints on interaction