@article {5851, title = {Effects of exposure and information structure in native and non-native pronoun resolution in French.}, journal = {Linguistic Vanguard}, year = {2018}, month = {2018-03-09}, abstract = {

The present study investigated pronoun resolution strategies in French native speakers and in German- speaking learners of French. French and German differ in antecedent preferences in ambiguous constructions such as The postman hit the pirate before he went home: while French shows a N2-preference, German shows a N1-preference. This difference is explained by effects of exposure to an unambiguous alternative construction referring to N1 that exists in French, but not in German (Hemforth et al. 2010, Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or gricean maxims? In Steallan Ohlsson and Richard Catarambone (eds.), 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2218\–2223. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society). In question- naires, we tested French active and passive sentences to investigate (a) whether the L2-learners would apply the same strategy as natives in the active condition (i.e. N2-preference), and (b) whether the explicit topicalization of a referent as a consequence of passivization influences interpretation preferences in both groups (result- ing in more N1 choices). The results show that German learners prefer the N1 more often than the French natives in the active condition. Crucially, the number of N1 choices increased in both groups in the passive condition. These results suggest that L2-learners might have difficulties acquiring strategies based on the fre- quency and availability of alternative constructions in the L2, and provide further evidence for the importance of information-structure-based strategies in L1 and L2 pronoun resolution.

}, doi = { https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0093}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Israel de la Fuente and Sascha Kuck and Barbara Hemforth} } @article {6073, title = {First language influence on second language offline and online ambiguous pronoun resolution}, journal = {Language Learning}, year = {2018}, abstract = {

This study looks at L1 influence on L2 ambiguous pronoun resolution and investigates a) whether L1 influence takes place on the level of the pronominal form (form-dependent influence), and/or on the level of the construction in which the form appears \ (construction-dependent influence) and b) whether effects differ in online compared to offline data. In Experiment 1, we replicated previously observed construction-dependent cross-linguistic differences between French and German (Hemforth et al., 2010), and provided new data on Spanish. In Experiment 2, we assessed offline and online interpretation preferences of intermediate L1 French and L1 Spanish learners of German. Our results provide evidence of form-dependent L1 influence, in that learners transferred a generalized antecedent bias associated with overt pronouns. Moreover, our results extend previous findings (Roberts, Gullberg \& Indefrey, 2008) in showing that L1 influence on L2 pronoun resolution can occur during online processing.

}, doi = { http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12293}, author = {Schimke, Sarah and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria} } @inbook {5850, title = {L1-Einfluss und generelle Lernereffekte bei der Aufl{\"o}sung ambiger Pronomen in einer L2.}, booktitle = {Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb.}, year = {2018}, pages = {221-246}, publisher = {de Gruyter}, organization = {de Gruyter}, edition = {Sarah Schimke, Holger Hopp}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {978-3-11-045635-6}, author = {Schimke, Sarah and Colonna, Saveria and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @inproceedings {4715, title = {Influence du contexte exp{\'e}rimental sur l{\textquoteright}interpr{\'e}tation des anaphores pronominales en fran{\c c}ais}, volume = {27}, year = {2016}, month = {07/2016}, edition = {SHS Web of Conferences}, abstract = {

R\ésum\é

Cette \étude pr\ésente les r\ésultats de trois questionnaires r\éalis\és en fran\çais afin d\’observer les pr\éf\érences d\’interpr\étation de formes pronominales ambigu\ës. Plus pr\écis\ément, nous nous sommes int\éress\és \à l\’influence du contexte exp\érimental sur l\’interpr\étation de pronoms anaphoriques plus ou moins r\éduits. Dans un premier questionnaire, seules des constructions avec le pronom faible \« il \» \étaient pr\ésent\ées. Un deuxi\ème questionnaire comportait seulement la forme forte \« lui, il \». Enfin, dans un troisi\ème questionnaire les deux formes \étaient m\élang\ées afin d\’observer si la pr\ésence, dans un m\ême questionnaire, des deux formes (\« il \» et \« lui, il \») pouvait influencer leur interpr\étation. C\’est seulement lorsque les deux formes sont pr\ésent\ées dans un m\ême questionnaire que nous observons une division fonctionnelle entre la forme pronominale r\éduite \« il \» et la forme accentu\ée \« lui, il \». La pr\ésence de \« lui, il \» dans le m\ême questionnaire que le pronom \« il \», augmente les interpr\étations du pronom \« il \» en faveur du r\éf\érent saillant (premier mentionn\é, sujet et topique) et les interpr\étations de \« lui, il \» en faveur de l\’ant\éc\édent moins saillant. Ces r\ésultats r\év\èlent \à quel point les locuteurs sont rapidement capables d\’adapter leur pr\éf\érence d\’interpr\étation \à la pr\ésence de formes alternatives dans le contexte.

Abstract

This paper presents the results of three questionnaires in which we investigated interpretational preferences for ambiguous pronominal forms in French. In particular, we examined the influence of the experimental context on the interpretation of more or less reduced anaphoric pronominal forms. In the first questionnaire, only constructions with the clitic pronoun \“il\” were tested. In the second questionnaire, only constructions with the strong form \“lui, il\” were tested. Finally, in the third questionnaire, both forms were mixed in order to test whether the presence of the two forms (\“il\” and \“lui, il\”) in a single questionnaire influences their interpretation. A division of labour in the processing of the reduced form \“il\” and of the strong one \“lui, il\” was observed only in the third questionnaire, i.e. when both forms were presented together. The presence of the form \“lui, il\” in the same questionnaire as the pronoun \“il\” increased the interpretations of the pronoun \“il\” in favour of the more salient referent (i.e., first mentioned, subject and topic) and the interpretations of \“lui, il\” in favour of the less salient antecedent. These results reveal that comprehenders can and do adapt their interpretational preferences to the presence of alternative forms in the context.

}, doi = { http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162710004}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Coralie Vincent and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @inbook {4700, title = {The role of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in pronoun resolution: A cross-linguistic overview}, booktitle = {Empirical perspectives on anaphor resolution}, number = {Linguistische Arbeiten 563}, year = {2016}, pages = {11-32}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, organization = {De Gruyter}, edition = {Anke Holler, Katja Suckow}, address = {Berlin/Boston}, abstract = {

Most psycholinguistic and computational linguistic work done in the field of ref- erence interpretation agrees today that the process of resolving a referring expression consists of several different stages (Kehler 2008 summarizes them with the SMASH algorithm: Search, Match, And Select using Heuristics). Different resoution strategies are assumed to hold for each of the stages. First, comprehenders collect all possible referents available within a given contextual frame. No selection or ranking of referents happens at this stage. Second, these candidates are filtered out through a series of \“hard\” morphosyntactic constraints, such as number, gender, person, binding constraints, etc. Finally, if more than one candidate remains possible as the antecedent of the referential expression after applying these hard constraints, the appropriate referent is selected based on some combination of \“soft\” constraints or heuristics (e.g. syntactic function, parallelism, thematic role, etc.). It is important to note, however, that while most psycholinguistic approaches to pronoun resolution have been primarily concerned with identifying these hard and soft constraints, little attention has been paid to providing a detailed and integrated explanation for the observed patterns, and for why different preferences seem to weigh differently in different contexts. Kehler (2008) is an exception to this rule. He explains the different weights of constraints by a combination of strategies based on preferences regarding the production of referential expressions and strategies based on discourse expectations.

The goals of this article are twofold: we will give an overview of some cross- linguistic work on pronoun resolution, summarizing results from a variety of off-line and on-line studies. Moreover, based on the observed results, we will suggest that pronoun resolution preferences in a particular language need to be explained by a combination of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors which, crucially, do not play out in the same manner within and across sentences (or better Dis- course Units [DU], as we will argue). We will focus on two factors: the effect of the availability of alternative constructions for a particular interpretation in a lan- guage and the question of whether the pronoun and its antecedent are in the same or in a separate DU. We will relate our results to a de notion of DU by Miltsakaki (2002) and show where this definition falls short of explaining the empirical results. Against these previous definitions of DU that equate this notion to either the sentence or the clause, in the last section of this article, we will provide evidence in favor of a more dynamic multifactorial definition of DU that systematizes and accounts for the preference patterns. We will argue that all the factors to be considered are valid across languages. However, their manifestation depends on the grammar of any particular language.\ 

}, issn = {978-3-11-045968-5}, doi = {10.1515/9783110464108-003}, url = {https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110464108/9783110464108-003/9783110464108-003.xml}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah} } @conference {4724, title = {Salience-based vs. exposure-based strategies in L2 pronoun resolution in French}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, abstract = {

We investigated pronoun resolution strategies in French native speakers and in German L2-learners of French. French and German differ in antecedent preferences in ambiguous constructions such as ?The postman hit the pirate before he went home?: while French shows a N2-preference, which is explained by the availability of a construction that unambiguously refers to N1, German, which does not have this alternative, shows a N1-preference.\ 
In questionnaires, we tested French active and passive sentences to investigate (a) whether the L2-learners would apply the same strategy as natives in the active condition (i.e. N2-preference), and (b) whether the explicit topicalization of a referent as a consequence of passivization influences interpretation preferences in both groups (resulting in more N1 choices).\ 
The results show that German learners continue to apply the L1 strategy in the L2, preferring the N1 significantly more often than the French natives in the active condition (57\% vs. 23\%). Crucially, the number of N1 choices increased significantly in both groups in the passive condition (74\% vs. 62\%). These results support salience-based strategies in L1 and L2 pronoun resolution and suggest that L2-learners might have difficulty acquiring strategies based on the frequency and availability of alternative constructions in the L2.

}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Schimke, Sarah and Sascha Kuck and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria} } @conference {4725, title = {Topicality-based vs. exposure-based preferences in pronoun resolution in French: Evidence from questionnaires and eye-movements}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, abstract = {

It has been observed that in French sentences such as \&$\#$39;The facteur a appel\é le pirate avant qu\&$\#$39;il rentre \à la maison\&$\#$39; (\&$\#$39;The postman called the pirate before he went home\&$\#$39;), the N2 (the pirate) is strongly preferred as the antecedent of the ambiguous pronoun. This N2-preference in French has been explained by the fact that speakers take into account an alternative non-finite construction that is available in the language (\&$\#$39;avant de rentrer \à la maison\&$\#$39;, \&$\#$39;before going home\&$\#$39;) and that unambiguously refers to the N1.\ 
In a questionnaire and a Visual World eye-tracking experiment, we tested whether the explicit topicalization of the object by means of a passive construction (\&$\#$39;Le pirate a \ét\é appel\é par le facteur...\&$\#$39;) can change the N2-preference in favor of an N1-preference. Despite the fact that the non-finite construction is an unambiguous alternative for the active as well as the passive sentences, we observed a significant increase of N1-preferences in passive compared to active constructions in both the questionnaire (p\<.0001) and the Visual World experiment (p\<.01). These results suggest that pronoun interpretation preferences based on the frequency and availability of alternative constructions can be overridden when a referent is explicitly marked as the topic.

}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Schimke, Sarah and Coralie Vincent and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria} } @article {4542, title = {Different effects of focus in intra- and intersentential pronoun resolution in German.}, journal = {Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience}, year = {2015}, month = {08/2015}, abstract = {

It is widely assumed that focused entities are more salient than non-focused ones and consequently, that an antecedent should be particularly available for a pronoun when it is foregrounded in a cleft construction. Contrary to this assumption, however, some studies observed that an antecedent focused by a cleft was less accessible than a non-focused one. We claim that the influence of clefting depends on the position of the ambiguous pronoun: clefted antecedents are only preferred as antecedents of a pronoun when the pronoun and its antecedent are in different discourse units. In order to test this hypothesis, we conducted a questionnaire and a visual world experiment in German in which we manipulated inter- vs. intra-sentential pronoun resolution. Results showed that clefting had different effects depending on the position of the pronoun. We will discuss why these results are consistent with the claim that pronouns preferentially co-refer with the sentence topic.

}, keywords = {eye-tracking, focus, information structure, language comprehension, pronoun resolution, visual world paradigm}, doi = {10.1080/23273798.2015.1066510}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4548, title = {L2 ambiguous pronoun resolution: the impact of L1-based preferences, L2-proficiency and working memory capacity}, year = {2015}, month = {05/2015}, address = {Rutgers}, author = {Schimke, Sarah and Colonna, Saveria and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @inbook {4431, title = {Information Structure and Pronoun Resolution in German and French: Evidence from the Visual-World Paradigm}, booktitle = {Psycholinguistic Approaches to Meaning and Understanding across Languages}, series = {Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics}, number = {44}, year = {2014}, pages = {175-196}, publisher = {Springer}, organization = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {978-3-319-05674-6}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Barbara Hemforth} } @article {4371, title = {Information structure cues for 4-year-olds and adults: Tracking eye movements to visually presented anaphoric referents}, journal = {Language, Cognition, and Neurosciences}, volume = {29}, year = {2014}, pages = {877-892}, author = {J{\"a}rvikivi, Juhani and Pyykk{\"o}nen-Klauck, Pirita and Schimke, Sarah and Colonna, Saveria and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4453, title = {Clause structure matters: The role of left-dislocation \& clefts in pronoun resolution}, year = {2013}, month = {03/2013}, address = {University of South Carolina}, doi = {10.13140/RG.2.1.1245.9682}, author = {Barbara Hemforth and Israel de la Fuente and Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah} } @conference {4460, title = { Pronoun resolution is fast and automatic: Evidence from a German visual world experiment}, year = {2013}, month = {09/2013}, address = {Marseille}, doi = {10.13140/RG.2.1.2974.4803}, author = {Schimke, Sarah and Colonna, Saveria and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4458, title = {The role of focus in within- and between-sentence pronoun resolution}, year = {2013}, month = {09/2013}, address = {Marseille}, doi = {10.13140/RG.2.1.1663.7608}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {1087, title = {Different effects of focus in intra- and inter-sentential pronoun resolution in German and French}, volume = {25}, year = {2012}, month = {03/2012}, pages = {113}, address = {NewYork}, url = {http://cuny2012.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2012/03/cuny2012_113.pdf}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Medam, Tiphaine and Barbara Hemforth}, editor = {Bradley, Dianne and Fernandez, Eva and Fodor, Janet} } @article {4370, title = {Information structure effects on anaphora resolution in German and French: A cross-linguistic study of pronoun resolution}, journal = {Linguistics}, volume = {55}, year = {2012}, pages = {991-1013}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Barbara Hemforth} }