Pronouns Are as Sensitive to Structural Constraints as Reflexives in Early Processing: Evidence From Visual World Paradigm Eye-Tracking.

Chung-Hye Han,Trevor Block,Holly Gendron,Sander Nederveen,Keir Moulton

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.611466

Abstract

A number of studies in the extant literature report findings that suggest asymmetry in the way reflexive and pronoun anaphors are interpreted in the early stages of processing: that pronouns are less sensitive to structural constraints, as formulated by Binding Theory, than reflexives, in the initial antecedent retrieval process. However, in previous visual world paradigm eye-tracking studies, these conclusions were based on sentences that placed the critical anaphors within picture noun phrases or prepositional phrases, which have independently been shown not to neatly conform to the Binding Theory principles. We present results from a visual world paradigm eye-tracking experiment that show that when critical anaphors are placed in the indirect object position immediately following a verb as a recipient argument, pronoun and reflexive processing are equally sensitive to structural constraints.

Highlights

When a reader or listener encounters a pronoun or a reflexive anaphor, they are faced with the task of determining the referent of the anaphor
As for pronouns in the double match condition, if the Principle B effect on pronouns is as strong as the Principle A effect on reflexives, we should see significantly more looks to the accessible antecedent image than to the inaccessible antecedent image
The finding that pronouns and reflexives pattern alike in the double match condition is consistent with the hypothesis that the Principle B effect on pronouns is as strong as the Principle A effect on reflexives

Summary

Introduction

When a reader or listener encounters a pronoun or a reflexive anaphor, they are faced with the task of determining the referent of the anaphor. The interpretation of pronouns and reflexives is constrained by structural principles (Chomsky, 1981) and the question arises as to how and when these structural constraints are integrated into a reader or listener’s understanding of reference. The reflexive herself in (1a) must corefer with the girl, the subject of the clause, and not with the subject of the embedded relative clause the teacher. The girl1 [that the teacher spoke to ] saw herself1/∗2 in the mirror. B. The girl1 [that the teacher spoke to ] saw her∗1/2 in the store

Methods

Results

Conclusion