1 / 36

Predictability within a word: Evidence from Finnish compounds Raymond Bertram and Jukka Hyönä,

Predictability within a word: Evidence from Finnish compounds Raymond Bertram and Jukka Hyönä, University of Turku & Alexander Pollatsek University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Presentation at ECEM13 , 18 . 8.2005 , 11.10-11.30 , Bern, Switzerland.

rebekah-calhoun
Download Presentation

Predictability within a word: Evidence from Finnish compounds Raymond Bertram and Jukka Hyönä,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Predictability within a word: Evidence from Finnish compounds Raymond Bertram and Jukka Hyönä, University of Turku & Alexander Pollatsek University of Massachusetts at Amherst Presentation at ECEM13, 18.8.2005, 11.10-11.30, Bern, Switzerland

  2. Predictability within a wordExp. 0 (N = 6 Finns) • dooms...... • ware...... • warehouse (6x) • doomsday (4x)

  3. Predictability across words Balota, Pollatsek, Rayner (1985) • The doctor told Fred that drinking would damage his LIVER/HEART very quickly. • Assessment of predictability: • a. How well a word fits into sentence (scale 1-5) • 4.47 for highly predictable words • 2.32 for less predictable words • b. The doctor told Fred that drinking would damage his ... • highly predictable words, 64 % of the time • less predictable words, < 1 % of the time

  4. Predictability across words • Balota, Pollatsek, Rayner (1985) • The doctor told Fred that drinking would damage his LIVER/HEART very quickly. • Target: FFD GAZE %2fix Less predictable (heart) 225 264 .22 Highly predictable (liver) 216 232 .09 Predictability Effect +9 ms +32 ms .13

  5. Predictability across words: interim summary • highly predictable words easier to process than less predictable words • predictability effects appear early in the eye movement record => first fixation duration (or 2fix%) • => predictability is integral part of lexical access; it isn’t confined to post-lexical checking processes

  6. Predictability within words • Focus of this study: can we find predictability effects within words as well => Finnish compounds

  7. Predictability within words For compound words, e.g. alttari/taulu, ’altar piece’ or aktivisti/liike ’activist movement, given the first constituent ... alttari ... aktivisti ... ... how predictable is the second constituent?

  8. Predictability within words liike aktivisti ryhmä klubi aktivisti has a small family

  9. Predictability within words komero rakenne taulumaalari liina kuva kokonaisuus syvennys kaide rakennelma maalaus hartaus kaappi laite seinä taulu vaate huone kehys osa poika alttari ... whereas alttari has a large family

  10. Predictability within words • => second constituent of alttari/taulu less predictable than than the second constituent of aktivisti/liike • => Does the left constituent family size (our initial operationalization of 2nd constituent predictability) affect compound word processing? • For example: will liike in aktivisti/liike be processed faster than taulu inalttari/taulu taulu alttari aktivisti liike

  11. Predictability within words • Earlier hints that famsize affects compound word processing: 1. Hyönä, Bertram, Pollatsek (2004): Compound word study in which first constituent frequency was manipulated, while keeping 2nd & whole-word freq. constant. High Frequency 1st constituent: NEWS/PAPER vs. Low Frequnecy 1st constituent: STRAW/BERRY • HF < LF, involvement 1stconstituent) • 1a. The man saw the NEWSPAPER and picked it up from the rack. • 1b. The man saw the STRAWBERRY and picked it up from the bush.

  12. High Frequency 1st constituent: NEWS/PAPER Low Frequency 1st constituent: STRAW/BERRY HF LF FFD Gaze Constituent 1 Gaze Whole Word HF LF HF LF • 221 231 * 243 285 * 555 622 * news/paper news/paper news/paper 1

  13. High Frequency 1st constituent: NEWS/PAPER Low Frequnecy 1st constituent: STRAW/BERRY Gaze Constituent 2 HF LF • 329 311 * news/paper

  14. Predictability within words • Same pattern of results found in Hyönä & Pollatsek (1998, 2000) • In sum, clear positive frequency effect of 1st constituent overall and in early stages, but reverse frequency effect on second constituent => Why? • Frequency as such may be a possible factor, but why would a second constituent (paper) be processed slow, when the first constituent (news) is of high frequency (against foveal load hypothesis newspaper • It’s more likely that it is due to the wealth of possible compounds that can be formed with news!

  15. Family size and 1st constituent Frequency Family size news + paper (+ man, agency, cast, desk, magazine, release, etc.) straw +berry (+man, flower) First Constituent Frequency

  16. Constraint hypothesis • second constituent of compounds with low frequency first constituents is more constrained than second constituent of compounds with high frequency first constituents • this will lead to faster processing of second constituent, when 1st constituent is of low frequency

  17. The family size experiment • Even though post-hoc analyses are suggestive, family size and first constituent frequency are confounded in earlier-mentioned studies => • Family size experiment: manipulating family size while controlling for first constituent frequency • And everything else ...

  18. Lexical statistics

  19. The family size experiment method Participants: N = 31 native Finns Apparatus: Eye Link 2 Materials: 8 items in practice session, 40 target items, 60 fillers. Matched target words in same sentence frame similar up to target + 1: Small family size: Ulla toivoi, että VIITTOMA/KIELI olisi kansalaisopiston seuraavan vuoden opinto-ohjelmassa. ‘Ulla hoped that sign language would be in next year’s community college curriculum.’ Large family size: Ulla toivoi, että ALTTARI/TAULU olisi ripustettu vähän korkeammalle, jotta se näkyisi takariviin asti. ‘Ulla hoped, that the altar piece would be hung a bit higher, so that it would be seen up to the back row.’ Procedure: Participants asked to paraphrase sentence on every 5th sentence

  20. The family size experiment • hypothesis 1: the right constituent of compounds whose left constituent has a Small Family Size (SFS compounds) will be processed faster/more efficiently than compounds whose left constituent has a Large Family Size (LFS compounds) • thus liike in aktivisti/liike will be processed faster than taulu inalttari/taulu

  21. The family size experiment • measures one can consider to assess this hypothesis • second fixation duration (fix. 2) alttari/taulu S < L • 2nd constituent gaze duration (fix 2+3) alttari/taulu S < L • 2nd constituent total reading time (fix 2,3,5) alttari/taulu S < L 2 2 3 5 4 2 3

  22. Large Family Size (LFS): ALTTARI/TAULU Small Family Size (SFS): AKTIVISTI/LIIKE LFS SFS 2nd fix. duration p1=.03, p2=.01 2nd constituent gaze p1=.02, p2=.08 2nd constituent total p1=.05, p2=.21 LFS SFS LFS SFS • 211 199 * 243 220 (*) 266 246 (*) alttari/taulu alttari/taulu alttari/taulu 5 2 2 3 4 2 3

  23. Conclusion • Stronger constraint of small family size leads to faster/more efficient processing of second constituent • => faster generation of second constituent for aktivisti/liike than for alttari/taulu!

  24. The family size experiment • hypothesis 2a: first constituent will be processed equally fast for both conditions (aktivisti in aktivisti/liike = alttari in alttari/taulu) • hypothesis 2b: SFS compounds will be processed faster than LFS compounds (aktivisti/liike < alttari/taulu)

  25. Large Family Size (LFS): ALTTARI/TAULU Small Family Size (SFS): AKTIVISTI/LIIKE LFS SFS 1st constituent gaze p1=.10, p2=.27 Nr. of fix. on 1st p1=.07, p2=.24 1st constituent total p1=.01, p2=.13 LFS SFS LFS SFS • 1.61 1.70 338 355 379 412 (*) alttari/taulu alttari/taulu alttari/taulu 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

  26. Conclusion • There is a tendency to process the first constituent of LFS compounds faster than SFS compounds • => No gaze duration effect. In the end, it takes about an equal amount of time to process SFS and LFS compounds Gaze whole word p1,p2 > .20 LFS SFS 572 584

  27. Discussion • Possible explanations for faster recognition of first constituent in LFS compounds: • first phase of 1st constituent recognition (familiarization phase) faster for constituents with large families (see E-Z reader) • easier to parse out first constituent with large families

  28. General Conclusions • Predictability of the second constituent can be quantified by family size (whether this is the best operationalization needs to be seen). • Within-word predictability similar to predictability effects across words • Faster processing of the predictable constituent/word than the unpredictable one • 1st constituent processing seems to benefit from large families • Whatever is predictable, at least the last slide is ... (if not formally than conceptually)

  29. KIITOS!!!

  30. Predictability within words alttaritaulu: freq=60 20 times alttariXXXX with frequency 1 Probability of encountering alttaritaulu given alttari is 75% komero rakenne taulumaalari liina kuva kokonaisuus syvennys kaide rakennelma maalaus hartaus kaappi laite seinä taulu vaate huone kehys osa poika alttari

  31. The family size experiment 2 • measures one can consider to assess this hypothesis • second fixation duration (fix. 2) alttari/taulu S < L • 2nd constituent gaze duration (fix 2+3) alttari/taulu S < L • 2nd constituent total reading time (fix 2,3,5) alttari/taulu S < L • skipping rate of 2nd constituent alttari/taulu S > L • number of fixations on second constituent alttari/taulu S < L 2 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 3

  32. The family size experiment: results • hypothesis 2a: first constituent will be processed equally (fast) for both conditions (aktivisti in aktivisti/liike = alttari in alttari/taulu)

  33. The family size experiment: results • hypothesis 2a: first constituent will be processed equally (fast) for both conditions (aktivisti in aktivisti/liike = alttari in alttari/taulu)

  34. Large Family Size (LFS): ALTTARI/TAULU Small Family Size (SFS): AKTIVISTI/LIIKE LFS SFS Nr. of fix. on 2nd p1=.16, p2=.47 Skipping rate 2nd p1=.12, p2=.51 LFS SFS • .236 .268 1.18 1.15 alttari/taulu alttari/taulu 1 2 3

  35. Large Family Size (LFS): ALTTARI/TAULU Small Family Size (SFS): AKTIVISTI/LIIKE LFS SFS Regr. fix. time p1=.01, p2=.21 Regr. to C1 p1=.01, p2=.21 3rd fix. location p1=.001, p2=.02 LFS SFS LFS SFS • .17 .23 (*) 41 58 (*) 8.70 7.51 * alttari/taulu alttari/taulu alttari/taulu 3 2 3 2 3 2

  36. Discussion • Possible explanations for faster recognition of first constituent in LFS compounds: • first phase of 1st constituent recognition (familiarization phase) faster for constituents with large families (see E-Z reader) • more global activation for first constituent with many family members (cf vld-studies Baayen et al. for simplex words) • easier to parse out constituents with large families • Meaning integration of 2 constituents sometimes easier for LFS compounds (reflected in regression data).

More Related