Shared syntax between comprehension and production: Multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension
Language comprehension and production are generally assumed to use the same representations, but resumption poses a problem for this view: This structure is regularly produced, but judged highly unacceptable. Production-based solutions to this paradox explain resumption in terms of processing pressu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cognition 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104417-104417, Article 104417 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 104417 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 104417 |
container_title | Cognition |
container_volume | 205 |
creator | Morgan, Adam M. von der Malsburg, Titus Ferreira, Victor S. Wittenberg, Eva |
description | Language comprehension and production are generally assumed to use the same representations, but resumption poses a problem for this view: This structure is regularly produced, but judged highly unacceptable. Production-based solutions to this paradox explain resumption in terms of processing pressures, whereas the Facilitation Hypothesis suggests resumption is produced to help listeners comprehend. Previous research purported to support the Facilitation Hypothesis did not test its keystone prediction: that resumption improves accuracy of interpretation. Here, we test this prediction directly, controlling for factors that previous work did not. Results show that resumption in fact hinders comprehension in the same sentences that native speakers produced, a finding which replicated across four high-powered experiments with varying paradigms: sentence-picture matching (N=300), self-paced reading (N=96), visual world eye-tracking (N=96), and multiple-choice comprehension question (N=150). These findings are consistent with production-based accounts, indicating that comprehension and production may indeed share representations, although our findings point toward a limit on the degree of overlap. Methodologically speaking, the findings highlight the importance of measuring interpretation when studying comprehension. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104417 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7669592</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010027720302365</els_id><sourcerecordid>2493859531</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-e00a524a133a924b9ec7d2dbeb3b8597900a46c7fb63d3e19ea3163bdb6ca9533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUuP0zAUhS0EYkrhL4AlNmxS_EjimAXSaMRLGsQCWFuOfdu4auxgO4X-exx1qBg2rCz5fufcx0HoBSUbSmj7er8xYedddsFvGGHLb11T8QCtaCd4JTrePUQrQiipCBPiCj1JaU8IqZnoHqMrzrqaUy5X6PR10BEsTief9S_cQ_4J4LEJ4xRhAJ9KB6y9xVMMdjZLwzf483zIrpp01NbtRgxHZ8EbwHnQGUdI8zhld4RF48PsEx6ctxDvuz5Fj7b6kODZ3btG39-_-3bzsbr98uHTzfVtZRrCcwWE6IbVmnKuJat7CUZYZnvoed81UshSr1sjtn3LLQcqQXPa8t72rdGy4XyN3p59p7kfwRrwOeqDmqIbdTypoJ26X_FuULtwVKJtZSNZMXh1ZxDDjxlSVqNLBg4H7SHMSbGai5owTmVBX_6D7sMcfVmvUJKXeZty9jUSZ8rEkFKE7WUYStQSr9qrS7xqiVed4y3K53_vctH9ybMA12cAykWPDqJKxi3ZWBfBZGWD-2-T36Zrvx4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2493859531</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Shared syntax between comprehension and production: Multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Morgan, Adam M. ; von der Malsburg, Titus ; Ferreira, Victor S. ; Wittenberg, Eva</creator><creatorcontrib>Morgan, Adam M. ; von der Malsburg, Titus ; Ferreira, Victor S. ; Wittenberg, Eva</creatorcontrib><description>Language comprehension and production are generally assumed to use the same representations, but resumption poses a problem for this view: This structure is regularly produced, but judged highly unacceptable. Production-based solutions to this paradox explain resumption in terms of processing pressures, whereas the Facilitation Hypothesis suggests resumption is produced to help listeners comprehend. Previous research purported to support the Facilitation Hypothesis did not test its keystone prediction: that resumption improves accuracy of interpretation. Here, we test this prediction directly, controlling for factors that previous work did not. Results show that resumption in fact hinders comprehension in the same sentences that native speakers produced, a finding which replicated across four high-powered experiments with varying paradigms: sentence-picture matching (N=300), self-paced reading (N=96), visual world eye-tracking (N=96), and multiple-choice comprehension question (N=150). These findings are consistent with production-based accounts, indicating that comprehension and production may indeed share representations, although our findings point toward a limit on the degree of overlap. Methodologically speaking, the findings highlight the importance of measuring interpretation when studying comprehension.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104417</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32843139</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Comprehension ; Eye tracking ; Eyetracking ; Humans ; Hypotheses ; Language ; Language comprehension ; Language production ; Listeners ; Multi-paradigm self-replication ; Paradigms ; Psychomotor Performance ; Reading ; Resumption ; Resumptive pronouns ; Syntax ; Tracking</subject><ispartof>Cognition, 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104417-104417, Article 104417</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-e00a524a133a924b9ec7d2dbeb3b8597900a46c7fb63d3e19ea3163bdb6ca9533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-e00a524a133a924b9ec7d2dbeb3b8597900a46c7fb63d3e19ea3163bdb6ca9533</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3188-6145</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104417$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32843139$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Morgan, Adam M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von der Malsburg, Titus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Victor S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittenberg, Eva</creatorcontrib><title>Shared syntax between comprehension and production: Multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension</title><title>Cognition</title><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><description>Language comprehension and production are generally assumed to use the same representations, but resumption poses a problem for this view: This structure is regularly produced, but judged highly unacceptable. Production-based solutions to this paradox explain resumption in terms of processing pressures, whereas the Facilitation Hypothesis suggests resumption is produced to help listeners comprehend. Previous research purported to support the Facilitation Hypothesis did not test its keystone prediction: that resumption improves accuracy of interpretation. Here, we test this prediction directly, controlling for factors that previous work did not. Results show that resumption in fact hinders comprehension in the same sentences that native speakers produced, a finding which replicated across four high-powered experiments with varying paradigms: sentence-picture matching (N=300), self-paced reading (N=96), visual world eye-tracking (N=96), and multiple-choice comprehension question (N=150). These findings are consistent with production-based accounts, indicating that comprehension and production may indeed share representations, although our findings point toward a limit on the degree of overlap. Methodologically speaking, the findings highlight the importance of measuring interpretation when studying comprehension.</description><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Eye tracking</subject><subject>Eyetracking</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Language comprehension</subject><subject>Language production</subject><subject>Listeners</subject><subject>Multi-paradigm self-replication</subject><subject>Paradigms</subject><subject>Psychomotor Performance</subject><subject>Reading</subject><subject>Resumption</subject><subject>Resumptive pronouns</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><issn>0010-0277</issn><issn>1873-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUuP0zAUhS0EYkrhL4AlNmxS_EjimAXSaMRLGsQCWFuOfdu4auxgO4X-exx1qBg2rCz5fufcx0HoBSUbSmj7er8xYedddsFvGGHLb11T8QCtaCd4JTrePUQrQiipCBPiCj1JaU8IqZnoHqMrzrqaUy5X6PR10BEsTief9S_cQ_4J4LEJ4xRhAJ9KB6y9xVMMdjZLwzf483zIrpp01NbtRgxHZ8EbwHnQGUdI8zhld4RF48PsEx6ctxDvuz5Fj7b6kODZ3btG39-_-3bzsbr98uHTzfVtZRrCcwWE6IbVmnKuJat7CUZYZnvoed81UshSr1sjtn3LLQcqQXPa8t72rdGy4XyN3p59p7kfwRrwOeqDmqIbdTypoJ26X_FuULtwVKJtZSNZMXh1ZxDDjxlSVqNLBg4H7SHMSbGai5owTmVBX_6D7sMcfVmvUJKXeZty9jUSZ8rEkFKE7WUYStQSr9qrS7xqiVed4y3K53_vctH9ybMA12cAykWPDqJKxi3ZWBfBZGWD-2-T36Zrvx4</recordid><startdate>20201201</startdate><enddate>20201201</enddate><creator>Morgan, Adam M.</creator><creator>von der Malsburg, Titus</creator><creator>Ferreira, Victor S.</creator><creator>Wittenberg, Eva</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3188-6145</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201201</creationdate><title>Shared syntax between comprehension and production: Multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension</title><author>Morgan, Adam M. ; von der Malsburg, Titus ; Ferreira, Victor S. ; Wittenberg, Eva</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-e00a524a133a924b9ec7d2dbeb3b8597900a46c7fb63d3e19ea3163bdb6ca9533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Eye tracking</topic><topic>Eyetracking</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Language comprehension</topic><topic>Language production</topic><topic>Listeners</topic><topic>Multi-paradigm self-replication</topic><topic>Paradigms</topic><topic>Psychomotor Performance</topic><topic>Reading</topic><topic>Resumption</topic><topic>Resumptive pronouns</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Morgan, Adam M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von der Malsburg, Titus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Victor S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittenberg, Eva</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Morgan, Adam M.</au><au>von der Malsburg, Titus</au><au>Ferreira, Victor S.</au><au>Wittenberg, Eva</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Shared syntax between comprehension and production: Multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension</atitle><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><date>2020-12-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>205</volume><spage>104417</spage><epage>104417</epage><pages>104417-104417</pages><artnum>104417</artnum><issn>0010-0277</issn><eissn>1873-7838</eissn><abstract>Language comprehension and production are generally assumed to use the same representations, but resumption poses a problem for this view: This structure is regularly produced, but judged highly unacceptable. Production-based solutions to this paradox explain resumption in terms of processing pressures, whereas the Facilitation Hypothesis suggests resumption is produced to help listeners comprehend. Previous research purported to support the Facilitation Hypothesis did not test its keystone prediction: that resumption improves accuracy of interpretation. Here, we test this prediction directly, controlling for factors that previous work did not. Results show that resumption in fact hinders comprehension in the same sentences that native speakers produced, a finding which replicated across four high-powered experiments with varying paradigms: sentence-picture matching (N=300), self-paced reading (N=96), visual world eye-tracking (N=96), and multiple-choice comprehension question (N=150). These findings are consistent with production-based accounts, indicating that comprehension and production may indeed share representations, although our findings point toward a limit on the degree of overlap. Methodologically speaking, the findings highlight the importance of measuring interpretation when studying comprehension.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>32843139</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104417</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3188-6145</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-0277 |
ispartof | Cognition, 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104417-104417, Article 104417 |
issn | 0010-0277 1873-7838 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7669592 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Comprehension Eye tracking Eyetracking Humans Hypotheses Language Language comprehension Language production Listeners Multi-paradigm self-replication Paradigms Psychomotor Performance Reading Resumption Resumptive pronouns Syntax Tracking |
title | Shared syntax between comprehension and production: Multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T00%3A32%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Shared%20syntax%20between%20comprehension%20and%20production:%20Multi-paradigm%20evidence%20that%20resumptive%20pronouns%20hinder%20comprehension&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.au=Morgan,%20Adam%20M.&rft.date=2020-12-01&rft.volume=205&rft.spage=104417&rft.epage=104417&rft.pages=104417-104417&rft.artnum=104417&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.eissn=1873-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104417&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2493859531%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2493859531&rft_id=info:pmid/32843139&rft_els_id=S0010027720302365&rfr_iscdi=true |