Koornneef 2006 Ontheuse
Koornneef 2006 Ontheuse
Koornneef 2006 Ontheuse
Memory and
Language
www.elsevier.com/locate/jml
a,*
b,c
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands
b
Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c
FC Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Received 3 October 2005; revision received 6 December 2005
Available online 31 January 2006
Abstract
In two experiments, we examined the recent claim (Stewart, Pickering, & Sanford, 2000) that verb-based implicit
causality information is used during sentencenal clausal integration only. We did so by looking for mid-sentence
reading delays caused by pronouns that are inconsistent with the bias of a preceding implicit causality verb (e.g., David
praised Linda because he. . .). In a self-paced reading task, such pronouns immediately slowed down reading, at the two
words immediately following the pronoun. In eye tracking, bias-inconsistent pronouns also immediately perturbed the
reading process, as indexed by signicant delays in various rst pass measures at and shortly after the critical pronoun.
Hence, readers can recruit verb-based implicit causality information in the service of comprehension rapidly enough to
impact on the interpretation of a pronoun early in the subordinate clause. We take our results to suggest that implicit
causality is used proactively, allowing readers to focus on, and perhaps even predict, who or what will be talked about
next.
2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Language comprehension; Interpersonal verbs; Implicit causality; Pronoun resolution; Immediacy; Prediction
Introduction
If you praise somebody, you will typically do so
because of his or her behavior, not yours. If you apologize to somebody, however, the most likely relevant
cause is your behavior, not theirs. These simple probabilistic asymmetries express part of our knowledge about
*
0749-596X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003
446
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
1
The terms proactive and retroactive are taken from
Garnhams (2001) review of implicit causality research.
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
447
448
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
Experiment 1
As discussed before, the self-paced reading ndings of
Stewart et al. (2000) were taken to support the clausal
integration account. However, in the Stewart et al. experiments the critical sentences were presented in two relatively large fragments, with the rst part consisting of
the main clause plus the connective and the anaphor
(either a pronoun or proper name), and with the second
part consisting of the remainder of the subordinate
clause. Thus, a sentence like David praised Linda
because he was very happy with the results would be presented as [David praised Linda because he] [was very happy with the results]. With only two such sample points
per sentence, the temporal resolution of the Stewart
et al. design is rather low. An important consequence is
that the observed average reading times are very large,
making it dicult to pick up on small reading time
eects. Note that in the most relevant experiment (Experiment 4), fragments containing bias-inconsistent pronouns did delay reading by 50 ms. However, the
average total reading time on those rst fragments
exceeded 2000 ms. The variance associated with such
large reading times may well have swamped a small pronoun eect.
Furthermore, because of the specic sentence partitioning used by Stewart et al., some of the early processing consequences elicited by an inconsistent pronoun
may actually have ended up in reading times at the rst
few words in the second fragment, and as such erroneously have been taken as evidence for the clausal integration account. With only three button presses per
trial, the participants in the Stewart et al. self-paced
reading experiments will probably have suered somewhat less from the spill-over of eects caused by a
task-induced button-press rhythm. However, spill-over
may also have a much deeper cause. For instance, ERP
research in which a singular gender-marked pronoun he
had two equally salient male antecedents, or only female
antecedents, has revealed that the processing consequences of such referential problems can last until
over a second after pronoun onset, i.e., well beyond
the average time that people look at such words (Van
Berkum, Zwitserlood, Bastiaansen, Brown, & Hagoort,
2004). The implication is that the processing consequences of a bias-inconsistent pronoun in the Stewart
et al. experiment may well have delayed reading of the
rst few words in the second fragment. In all, there is
reason to believe that the large fragments used in the
Stewart et al. self-paced reading experiments may have
caused them to miss small eects on the pronoun itself,
and confound true sentence-nal clausal integration
eects with earlier eects spilled over from the pronoun,
making it impossible to determine whether implicit
causality information enters the comprehension process
early or late.
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
449
Table 1
Implicit causality verbs used in Experiment 1 and 2 with their
bias
Verb
Bias
NP1-biased verbs
fascineren (fascinate)
excuses aanbieden (apologize)
bekennen aan (confess)
teleurstellen (disappoint)
vervelen (bore)
hinderen (be in the way)
oplichten (swindle)
kwellen (hurt)
storen (disturb)
smeken (beg)
bellen (call)
ergeren (annoy)
verbazen (amazed)
verontrusten (worry)
winnen van (win)
misleiden (mislead)
irriteren (irritate)
liegen tegen (lie to)
inspireren (inspire)
intimideren (intimidate)
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.04
1.05
1.09
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.17
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.23
1.23
NP2-biased verbs
minachten (hold in contempt)
benijden (envy)
bewonderen (admire)
vrezen (fear)
waarderen (appreciate)
bekritiseren (criticise)
prijzen (praise)
complimenteren (compliment on something)
haten (hate)
ontslaan (re)
respecteren (respect)
straen (punish)
feliciteren (congratulate)
verantwoordelijk stellen (hold responsible)
aanklagen (press charges against)
troosten (comfort)
verafschuwen (loathe)
aanbidden (adore)
houden van (love)
bedanken (thank)
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.82
450
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
451
completion of the self-paced reading experiment, participants were administered a Dutch version of the reading
span task (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). A full session
was completed within 60 min, with an average time-ontask of 40 min.
Analysis
Prior to all analyses, we evaluated the comprehension
question performance of our participants. All participants scored above 75% correct (mean score 94%).
Reading times more than 2 standard deviations from
both the participants mean and the items mean in a
particular condition were treated as missing data
(2.1%). We report means and statistical analyses for
the factor Consistency for the critical pronoun, each of
the ve words following the pronoun (spill-over region),
and each of the four words preceding it (pre-critical
region). We only discuss eects that are signicant by
subjects (F1) and by items (F2), and we report the associated minF 0 values in tables (Clark, 1973; Raaijmakers,
Schrijnemakers, & Gremmen, 1999).
Because implicit causality results are customarily
reported for NP1- and NP2-verbs separately, our analyses of variance will also take direction of the bias into
account (Verb Bias). However, note that the comparison
of inconsistency eects elicited by NP1 verbs and NP2
verbs is confounded with the eects of distance between
anaphor and antecedent, of rst mention, and of the
antecedents structural position (see Garnham, 2001,
for an overview of the relevance of these factors). For
this reason, we focus our discussion and gures on the
main eects of Consistency.
Results and discussion
As can be seen from the mean reading times (collapsed over Verb Bias) in Fig. 1 and the associated F tests
displayed in Table 2, words in the pre-critical region were
read equally fast across Consistency condition. However,
readers began to slow down right at the bias-inconsistent
pronoun, with a signicant main eect of Consistency
emerging at the rst two words after this pronoun. This
eect was not signicantly modulated by whether the
verb was biased towards NP1 or NP2.2
2
We also did not nd any signicant modulations of the
inconsistency eect as a function of whether the participants
reading span was above or below the median score for this
sample (span = 5.08 vs. 2.67 respectively, SD = 1.00 vs .44). We
note that, because our undergraduate participants were all
relatively highly skilled readers, the absence of signicant
reading span eects in our study is not necessarily incompatible
with the skill-dependent inconsistency eects reported by Long
and De Ley (2000), and otherwise refrain from further
discussion.
Fig. 1. Mean reading times (in ms) for the consistent and
inconsistent condition in Experiment 1 (error bars indicate one
side of a 95% condence interval based on the MSE-value; see
Masson and Loftus, 2003).
452
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
Table 2
Mean reading times and analysis of variance results for Experiment 1
Wordposition
4
3
2
1
e.g.:
Linda
David
praised
praised
David
Linda
because
because
he
he
had
had
been
been
able
able
to
to
complete
complete
410
404
408
417
401
404
338
349
341
363
351
375
376
391
367
376
368
382
NP1-bias
Consistent
Inconsistent
420
411
403
409
409
425
403
424
347
357
350
382
340
371
388
401
373
387
371
378
NP2-bias
Consistent
Inconsistent
425
424
417
399
408
410
400
384
329
340
333
343
362
379
364
380
361
364
365
386
F1 (Consistency, df = 1, 23)
F
<1
MSE
1127
p
.526
<1
2992
.623
1.065
1755
.313
<1
1290
.720
1.452
1772
.245
9.107
1241
.006*
7.477
1815
.012*
1.993
2561
.171
1.015
1774
.324
3.187
1540
.087
F2 (Consistency, df = 1, 38)
F
<1
MSE
1944
p
.685
<1
1099
.519
1.362
1137
.250
<1
2269
.848
1.733
1096
.196
9.379
955
.004*
9.643
1239
.004*
1.966
2625
.169
1.386
894
.246
3.423
1257
.072
minF 0 (Consistency)
F
<1
df
1, 59
p
.731
<1
1, 48
.694
<1
1, 53
.443
<1
1, 55
.866
<1
1, 55
.378
4.620
1, 57
.036*
4.211
1, 53
.045*
<1
1, 58
.324
<1
1, 52
.478
1.650
1, 56
.204
df = 1, 23)
1.235
<1
2854
1208
.278
.378
6.161
1278
.021*
<1
858
.973
2.181
1289
.153
1.326
985
.261
<1
2850
.941
<1
1151
.425
1.244
1104
.276
df = 1, 38)
3.096
<1
1099
1137
.087
.477
3.086
2269
.087
<1
1096
.982
2.789
955
.103
1.026
1239
.317
<1
2625
.989
<1
894
.382
<1
1257
.352
2.056
1, 61
.157
<1
1, 57
.982
1.223
1, 53
.274
<1
1, 60
.450
<1
1, 39
.992
<1
1, 55
.552
<1
1, 61
.474
Consistent:
Inconsistent:
<1
1, 61
.577
p < .05.
reading method that we used. First, although a word-byword reading paradigm has a higher temporal resolution
than the clause-by-clause paradigm of Stewart et al., the
task is of course somewhat unnatural, as people normally do not press a button after reading each individual
word (but see Mitchell, 2004, for an eloquent defense
of the self-paced reading task). Furthermore, and perhaps more important in the context at hand, our use
of a non-cumulative moving-window paradigm made it
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
Experiment 2
Method
Participants
Participants were 24 members from the Utrecht University community (23 female, mean age 21, range 1834
years) who received money for their participation.
Materials
The materials were the same as in Experiment 1,
with two small exceptions. One is that in order to raise
xation probability, the two words following the critical pronoun he were changed, if necessary, such that
they had a minimal length of ve characters. Furthermore, because of demands associated with the eye
tracker and the variable length of words within the
ve-word spill-over region, the one or two last words
of this region (i.e., words 9 and 10 in the results table)
were sometimes displayed on the next line. The same
llers, randomizations, and comprehension questions
were used.
Procedure
A head-mounted SMI eye tracker was used to monitor eye movements. The tracker had an angular resolution of 20 s of arc, and monitored both eyes gaze
locations every 4 ms. The stories were presented as a
whole on a CRT (Nokia Multigraph 446xpro) screen.
Before presentation, a xation mark appeared on screen
at the position of the rst word of the rst sentence. Participants were instructed to xate this mark before they
made a story visible by pressing a button. After reading
a story the participants again pressed this button to progress. The comprehension questions that followed 40
pseudo-randomly determined trials were answered using
two buttons on the same response box. Each session
started with a written instruction, after which we mounted and calibrated the eye tracker. During the calibration
procedure the participants had to xate a random
sequence of dots at various locations on screen. Upon
successful calibration the experiment started with ve
practice trials, two followed by a question. Before the
experimental trials were presented the eye tracker was
recalibrated. This procedure was repeated three times
throughout the experiment. Each session ended with
the administration of a Dutch reading span task, and
was completed within 50 min.3
3
Due to very low variability, the results of the reading span
task did not allow for a sensible median split, and we therefore
refrained from analyzing the results of Experiment 2 as a
function of reading span group.
453
Analysis
All participants scored above 85% correct (mean
score 94%) on the comprehension questions. Prior to
all analyses, we removed 5.6% of the trials because
major tracker losses and eye blinks made it impossible
to determine the course of xations at or directly around
the critical pronoun. Furthermore, if a xation was
shorter than 80 ms and within one character space of
the previous or next xation, it was assimilated to this
xation. All remaining xations shorter than 80 ms, as
well as xations longer than 1200 ms or containing
blinks, were excluded (8.4%). Because short words like
pronouns receive very few xations, we extended the
region for the pronoun by six characters to the left, if
the pronoun was skipped during rst pass reading. This
leftward-shifting procedure is based on evidence that
readers are able to obtain lexical information from
words beginning six characters from a particular xation, and on evidence that the perceptual span is asymmetric to the right of a xation (see Rayner & Sereno
(1994) for more discussion). In the current experiment,
the procedure increased the probability for xating the
critical pronoun from 42 to 86%. If after this procedure,
the pronoun was still not xated, the data point for the
trial was treated as missing data (as was done for any
other word that was not xated during rst pass
reading).
As in Experiment 1, we will report mean reading
times and statistical analysis for the factor Consistency
(and its interaction with Verb Bias) for four words in
the pre-critical region, the critical pronoun, and ve
words in the spill-over region. We will discuss three different rst-pass eye movement measures. First-Fixation
Duration reects the duration of the very rst xation
on a word. First-Gaze Duration is the total reading time
of a word before the reader either moves on, or looks
back in the text. Finally, Regression Path Durations
are the sum of xation and saccade durations from the
time when the reader encounters a word, to the time
when the reader enters the region after this word. This
means that if the reader looks back after reading a word
(a regression), the regression path time includes all xation and saccade durations of this regression. All measures are presumed to be sensitive for processes that
occur relatively early during comprehension.4
4
First-gaze durations consist of rst xation durations plus
any additional xations on the word that directly follow the
rst xation. Similarly, the regression path duration incorporates the rst gaze duration, as well as the duration of the
regression (if present) that directly follows after xating a
particular word. As a result, the dierent measures incrementally allow processes that occur somewhat later to enter the
measure.
454
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
Fig. 2. Mean rst xation durations (in ms) for the consistent
and inconsistent condition in Experiment 2.
the pre-critical region, we did however obtain a signicant Consistency by Verb Bias interaction, in rst-gaze
and regression path durations. In both measures the
reading times on this word in NP1 stories were longer
in the consistent versions than in the inconsistent ones,
whereas the opposite was observed for NP2 stories.
We are inclined to interpret this as a chance eect, possibly related to the fact that, in contrast to the critical
region, dierent words are involved across conditions.
As in Experiment 1, we obtained eects of implicit
causality right afterand in this case even atthe critical pronoun, only two words into the subordinate
clause. This shows that the early eects of implicit causality on sentence processing obtained in Experiment 1
cannot be attributed to particular strategies adopted in
the self-paced reading task. Moreover, these eye tracking
ndings again show that implicit causality becomes
available very early in the comprehension process, as
predicted by the immediate focusing account. Regardless of whether readers make their way through a story
in self-paced or unconstrained reading, the implicit causality information aorded by biased interpersonal verbs
like praise or disappoint is brought to bear on sentence
comprehension rapidly enough to have an impact on
the interpretation of a referring pronoun occurring in
mid-sentence, only two words into the subordinate
clause.
General discussion
Fig. 3. Mean rst-gaze durations (in ms) for the consistent and
inconsistent condition in Experiment 2.
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
455
Table 3
Mean rst xation durations and analysis of variance results for Experiment 2
Wordposition
4
3
2
1
e.g.:
Linda
David
praised
praised
David
Linda
because
because
he
he
had
had
been
been
194
204
177
171
187
191
189
193
NP1-bias
Consistent
Inconsistent
203
199
201
192
187
206
178
166
193
191
NP2-bias
Consistent
Inconsistent
209
219
204
208
200
202
175
176
F1 (Consistency)
F
df
MSE
p
<1
1, 23
937
.633
<1
1, 23
961
.730
1.931
1, 21
1291
.179
F2 (Consistency)
F
df
MSE
p
<1
1, 38
952
.791
<1
1, 38
1755
.568
minF 0 (Consistency)
F
<1
df
1, 56
p
.816
able
able
to
to
complete
complete
199
200
184
205
188
187
198
195
189
194
203
199
174
205
188
185
191
190
180
191
189
191
194
200
194
204
188
188
204
200
<1
1, 20
1281
.506
1.754
1, 23
222
.198
<1
1, 23
299
.329
<1
1, 23
357
.761
14.268
1, 23
684
.001*
<1
1, 23
480
.762
<1
1, 23
828
.662
<1
1, 36
843
.487
1.033
1, 38
834
.316
<1
1, 38
573
.334
<1
1, 38
344
.515
<1
1, 38
484
.780
4.913
1, 37
1909
.033*
<1
1, 37
1408
.880
<1
1, 36
927
.325
<1
1, 40
.767
<1
1, 51
.533
<1
1, 38
.576
<1
1, 61
.434
<1
1, 60
.585
<1
1, 59
.836
3.654
1, 56
.061
<1
1, 52
.892
<1
1, 32
.688
<1
1, 23
1331
.415
<1
1, 21
1870
.401
1.207
1, 20
695
.285
3.651
1, 23
275
.069
<1
1, 23
345
.661
1.098
1, 23
497
.306
2.663
1, 23
929
.116
<1
1, 23
883
.726
<1
1, 23
765
.790
<1
1, 38
1755
.601
<1
1, 36
843
.370
2.895
1, 38
834
.097
1.527
1, 38
573
.224
<1
1, 38
344
.676
<1
1, 38
484
.562
<1
1, 37
1909
.357
<1
1, 37
1408
.570
<1
1, 36
927
.363
<1
1, 51
.536
<1
1, 37
.362
1.076
1, 59
.304
<1
1, 59
.761
<1
1, 56
.612
<1
1, 56
.421
<1
1, 40
.764
<1
1, 27
.797
Consistent:
Inconsistent:
p < .05.
456
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
Table 4
Mean rst-gaze durations and analysis of variance results for Experiment 2
Wordposition
4
3
e.g.:
Linda
David
praised
praised
2
1
David
Linda
because
because
he
he
had
had
245
253
244
251
199
186
190
200
227
224
252
230
229
232
206
187
NP2-bias
Consistent
Inconsistent
227
241
237
275
259
269
F1 (Consistency)
F
df
MSE
p
<1
1, 23
1835
.520
<1
1, 23
3890
.524
F2 (Consistency)
F
df
MSE
p
<1
1, 38
2636
.590
been
been
able
able
to
to
complete
complete
210
214
220
222
205
230
209
210
243
237
195
202
211
209
225
225
194
224
208
201
250
239
192
184
185
197
208
218
215
219
216
236
209
219
236
234
<1
1, 21
4306
.678
1.968
1, 20
1924
.176
5.705
1, 23
351
.026*
<1
1, 23
747
.468
<1
1, 23
691
.696
12.814
1, 23
1136
.002*
<1
1, 23
2103
.861
<1
1, 23
1147
.344
<1
1, 38
3663
.807
<1
1, 36
1134
.987
1.387
1, 38
1455
.246
2.096
1, 38
1221
.156
<1
1, 38
1014
.494
<1
1, 38
1558
.821
6.054
1, 37
2601
.019*
1.170
1, 37
2228
.286
3.094
1, 36
1285
.087
minF 0 (Consistency)
F
<1
df
1, 61
p
.678
<1
1, 48
.820
<1
1, 36
.992
<1
1, 57
.371
1.532
1, 58
.221
<1
1, 59
.616
<1
1, 57
.844
4.111
1, 59
.047*
<1
1, 24
.863
<1
1, 37
.402
7.244
1, 23
3000
.013*
<1
1, 21
401
.405
<1
1, 20
1091
.472
<1
1, 23
491
.540
1.122
1, 23
730
.300
<1
1, 23
809
.713
<1
1, 23
1904
.596
<1
1, 23
2014
.344
<1
1, 23
1036
.477
4.064
1, 38
3663
.051
2.261
1, 36
1134
.141
<1
1, 38
1455
.472
<1
1, 38
1221
.665
1.007
1, 38
1014
.322
<1
1, 38
1558
.976
<1
1, 37
2601
.858
<1
1, 37
2228
.866
<1
1, 36
1285
.839
<1
1, 35
.464
<1
1, 53
.608
<1
1, 60
.722
<1
1, 59
.469
<1
1, 39
.974
<1
1, 45
.866
<1
1, 39
.868
<1
1, 39
.893
Consistent:
Inconsistent:
p < .05.
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
457
Table 5
Mean regression path durations and analysis of variance results for Experiment 2
Wordposition
4
3
2
1
e.g.:
Linda
David
praised
praised
David
Linda
because
because
he
he
had
had
been
been
able
able
to
to
complete
complete
305
267
333
354
209
255
248
279
271
314
281
354
314
280
395
318
NP1-bias
Consistent
Inconsistent
249
240
317
266
299
248
357
329
212
282
250
289
276
311
264
290
313
275
466
306
NP2-bias
Consistent
Inconsistent
256
258
284
355
310
276
308
378
205
227
245
269
265
316
297
417
314
284
323
330
F1 (Consistency)
F
df
MSE
p
<1
1, 23
3967
.809
<1
1, 23
9864
.644
8.438
1, 21
4765
.008*
<1
1, 20
18503
.485
6.144
1, 23
8215
.021*
3.604
1, 23
6577
.070
3.531
1, 23
12735
.073
2.858
1, 23
44429
.104
2.375
1, 23
11820
.137
3.473
1, 23
40105
.075
F2 (Consistency)
F
df
MSE
p
<1
1, 38
4828
.904
<1
1, 38
10685
.913
3.946
1, 36
3918
.055
<1
1, 38
10356
.519
4.772
1, 38
11862
.035*
4.609
1, 38
3857
.038*
3.229
1, 38
7750
.080
1.946
1, 37
33990
.171
<1
1, 37
11102
.598
1.920
1, 36
42178
.174
minF 0 (Consistency)
F
<1
df
1, 54
p
.913
<1
1, 42
.917
2.688
1, 56
.107
<1
1, 55
.633
2.685
1, 60
.107
2.022
1, 53
.161
1.686
1, 58
.199
1.157
1, 60
.286
<1
1, 45
.618
1.236
1, 59
.271
5.933
1, 23
15134
.023*
<1
1, 21
4286
.540
3.042
1, 20
16788
.096
1.645
1, 23
8472
.212
<1
1, 23
4156
.603
<1
1, 23
8524
.663
1.294
1, 23
41890
.267
<1
1, 23
14453
.867
6.781
1, 23
24463
.016*
5.628
1, 38
10685
.023*
<1
1, 36
3918
.838
<1
1, 38
10356
.445
1.082
1, 38
11862
.305
<1
1, 38
3857
.882
<1
1, 38
7750
.939
2.482
1, 37
33990
.124
<1
1, 37
11102
.682
2.479
1, 36
42178
.124
<1
1, 43
.845
<1
1, 51
.517
<1
1, 61
.422
<1
1, 44
.887
<1
1, 40
.940
<1
1, 46
.361
<1
1, 31
.876
1.815
1, 56
.183
Consistent:
Inconsistent:
p < .05.
very rapidly recruit verb-based implicit causality information in the service of comprehension, rapidly enough
to impact on the interpretation of a pronoun early the
subordinate clause.
In the immediate focusing account (Greene &
Mc-Koon, 1995; Long & De Ley, 2000; McKoon
458
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
459
460
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
461
462
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
Consistent. Lex en Suzan waren van die personen die elkaar
absoluut niet kunnen uitstaan. Elke keer dat zij elkaar tegenkwamen, liep het op ruzie uit. Suzan verafschuwde Lex omdat hij
werkelijk altijd domme en botte opmerkingen tegen haar
maakte.
Inconsistent. Lex en Suzan waren van die personen die elkaar absoluut niet kunnen uitstaan. Elke keer dat zij elkaar tegenkwamen, liep het op uit. Lex verafschuwde Suzan omdat hij
werkelijk altijd domme en botte opmerkingen ruzie van haar
hoorde.
Consistent. Els en Bas deden samen mee aan een vraaggesprek over de liefde. Toen hen gevraagd werd waarom ze van
elkaar hielden, was het antwoord duidelijk. Els hield van Bas
omdat hij altijd zichzelf en ontzettend vrolijk was in haar
aanwezigheid.
Inconsistent. Els en Bas deden samen mee aan een vraaggesprek over de liefde. Toen hen gevraagd werd waarom ze
van elkaar hielden, was het antwoord duidelijk. Bas hield
van Els omdat hij altijd zichzelf en ontzettend vrolijk bij haar
kon zijn.
Consistent. Guido en Heleen hadden hard gestudeerd voor
een tentamen. Jammer genoeg haalden ze het allebei niet.
Heleen troostte Guido omdat hij na het horen van de uitslag
toch wel erg teleurgesteld had gereageerd.
Inconsistent. Guido en Heleen hadden hard gestudeerd voor
een tentamen. Jammer genoeg haalden ze het allebei niet. Guido
troostte Heleen omdat hij na het horen van de uitslag zag hoe
moeilijk ze het had.
Consistent. Soe en Martijn hielden van jongs af aan al van
rollenspelletjes. Zij speelden elke week weer een andere situatie
na. Soe strafte Martijn omdat hij deze week een zeer vervelende schooljongen was.
Inconsistent. Soe en Martijn hielden van jongs af aan al van
rollenspelletjes. Zij speelden elke week weer een andere situatie
na. Martijn strafte Soe omdat hij deze week een zeer vervelende schoolmeester was.
Consistent. Sinds lange tijd waren Bob en Wendy werkzaam
bij een advocatenbureau. Als zij samenwerkten vlogen de verwijten over en weer. Wendy bekritiseerde Bob omdat hij de hele
tijd alle moeilijke beslissingen aan haar over liet.
Inconsistent. Sinds lange tijd waren Bob en Wendy werkzaam bij een advocatenbureau. Als zij samenwerkten vlogen
de verwijten over en weer. Bob bekritiseerde Wendy omdat
hij de hele tijd alle moeilijke beslissingen helemaal alleen moest
nemen.
Consistent. Olga en Sander zaten in hetzelfde korfbalteam.
Ze hadden zojuist met dit team een belangrijk toernooi gewonnen. Olga feliciteerde Sander omdat hij na zon goed gespeelde
nale een schouderklopje zeker wel verdiende.
Inconsistent. Olga en Sander zaten in hetzelfde korfbalteam.
Ze hadden zojuist met dit team een belangrijk toernooi gewonnen. Sander feliciteerde Olga omdat hij na zon goed gespeelde
nale een schouderklopje wel terecht vond.
Consistent. Hoewel David en Mirjam al sinds lange tijd
samen op pianoles zaten, hadden ze totaal geen waardering
voor elkaar. Mirjam minachtte David omdat hij na al die jaren
les nog steeds geen vooruitgang boekte.
Inconsistent. Hoewel David en Mirjam al sinds lange tijd
samen op pianoles zaten, hadden ze totaal geen waardering
voor elkaar. David minachtte Mirjam omdat hij na al die jaren
les nog steeds geen vooruitgang zag.
463
464
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
References
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental
interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247264.
Arnold, J. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA.
Arnold, F. (2001). The eect of thematic roles on pronoun use
and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137162.
Arnold, J., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell,
J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence
of the time course of pronoun resolution from eye tracking.
Cognition, 76, B13B26.
Au, T. K. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes
and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 104122.
Boland, J. E., Acker M. T., & Wagner L. (1998). The use of
gender features in the resolution of pronominal anaphora
(Cognitive Science Technical Reports No. #17). The Ohio
State University Center for Cognitive Science.
A.W. Koornneef, J.J.A. Van Berkum / Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2006) 445465
Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The inuence of connectives
on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128147.
Mitchell, D. M. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In M. Carreiras &
C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 1532). New
York: Psychology Press.
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (in press). When
peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of
discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Oakhill, J. V., Garnham, A., Reynolds, D., & Wilshire, C.
(1998). Implicit causality eects in the interpretation of
pronouns. In Poster presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting
of the Society for Text and Discourse, Madison, Wisconsin,
July 1998.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain
potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory
and Language, 31, 785806.
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain
potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory
and Language, 34, 739773.
Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2004). Discourse-based
lexical anticipation during language processing: Prediction or
priming? Annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience
Society (CNS-2004), San Francisco, April 1820. Supplement to the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, p. 68.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen,
F. (1999). How to deal with The language-as-xed-eect
fallacy: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416426.
Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Eye movements in reading:
Psycholinguistic studies. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),
Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 5781). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Rudolph, U., & Forsterling, F. (1997). The psychological
causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological Bulletin,
121, 192218.
Semin, G. R., & Marsman, J. G. (1994). Multiple inferenceinviting properties of interpersonal verbs: Event instigation,
dispositional inference, and implicit causality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 836849.
Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994).
Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519548.
Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). The
time course of the inuence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of
Memory and Language, 42, 423443.
St. George, M., Mannes, S., & Homan, J. E. (1994). Global
semantic expectancy and language comprehension. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 7083.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech,
language, and communication (pp. 217262). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
465