Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:45:40.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Eye-Tracking and Self-Paced Reading

from Part IV - Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Claudia Felser
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on experimental psycholinguistic techniques that tap into real-time sentence processing by measuring moment-by-moment reading times or eye-gaze patterns. Data recorded during real-time reading or listening can provide implicit measures of grammatical sensitivity and are a valuable source of evidence for grammatical distinctions, operations, and constraints proposed within the theoretical linguistic literature. A selective review of recent reading-time and eye-movement monitoring studies illustrates how these techniques can help us investigate theoretical linguistic issues and hypotheses, and provide insights into the nature of syntactic derivations and representations. Charting comprehenders' sentence processing profiles over time can help reveal the sources of unacceptability and of grammatical illusions, the point in time at which grammatical violations are detected, the point in time at which grammatical constraints are applied, and can also reveal processing reflexes of a sentence's derivational history.

Keywords

sentence processingeye-movement monitoringvisual-world paradigmself-paced readingmovement phenomenabindingagreement attractioncase attractionisland constraints
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 617 - 640
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. (2011). The mediation of eye movements by spoken language. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 979−1004.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., & Felser, C. (2015). Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1387. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387Google Scholar
Berwick, R. & Weinberg, A. (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A., Bates, E., & Fisher, D. (1996). The time course of grammaticality judgment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 337–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for immediate use of verb-based “control” information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.Google Scholar
Booth, J., MacWhinney, B., & Harasaki, Y. (2000). Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development, 71, 981–1003.Google Scholar
Bott, O. & Schlotterbeck, F. (2015). The processing domain of scope interaction. Journal of Semantics, 32, 39–92.Google Scholar
Boxell, O. (2014). Lexical fillers permit real-time gap-search in island domains. Journal of Cognitive Science, 15, 97–135.Google Scholar
Boxell, O. & Felser, C. (2017). Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 494–511.Google Scholar
Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25–45.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. & Dotlačil, J. (2015). Sentence-internal same and its quantificational licensors: A new window into the processing of inverse scope. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8, 1–52.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1998). Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., & Pesetsky, D., eds., Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 59–92.Google Scholar
Chesi, C. (2007). Five reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue, 3(1), 71–105.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J., & Keyser., S. J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128–144.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. M. & Tanenhaus, M. K., eds., Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 273–317.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. & Staub, A. (2011). Syntactic influences on eye movements in reading. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 895–909.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In van Gompel, R. P. G., Fischer, M. H., Murray, W. S., & Hill, R. L., eds., Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 341–372.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84−107.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2014). Variable binding and coreference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 71, 39–56.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2015). Structural constraints on pronoun binding and coreference: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 840. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00840Google Scholar
Czypionka, A., Dörre, L., & Bayer, J. (2018). Inverse Case attraction: Experimental evidence for a syntactically guided process. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 21(7), 135–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demberg, V. & Sayeed, A. (2016). The frequency of rapid pupil dilations as a measure of linguistic processing difficulty. PLOS One, 11(1). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146194Google Scholar
Dickey, M. W., Choy, J. J., & Thompson, C. K. (2007). Real-time comprehension of wh-movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100, 1–22.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Staub, A., Levy, J., & Clifton, C. (2017). Which noun phrases is this verb supposed to agree with? Object agreement in American English. Language, 93(1), 65–96.Google Scholar
Drummer, J.-D. & Felser, C. (2018). Cataphoric pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 97–113.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Gerfen, C. (2014). Using the visual world to study spoken language processing. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 93–126.Google Scholar
Dwivedi, V. D. (2013). Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: Evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing. PLOS One, 8(11), e81461. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081461Google Scholar
Enochson, K. & Culbertson, J. (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PLOS One, 10(3), 1–17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116946CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felser, C. (2015). Syntax and language processing. In Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A., eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1875–1911.Google Scholar
Felser, C. & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.Google Scholar
Felser, C. & Drummer, J.-D. (2017). Sensitivity to crossover constraints during native and non-native pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 771–789.Google Scholar
Felser, C. , Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11, 127–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 157–196.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Colonna, S., & Rizzi, L. (2015). Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 349. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00349Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2002). Processing “d-linked” phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 633–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency-locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A. P., & O’Neill, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Jacobson, P., Graff, P., Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2015). A pragmatic account of complexity in definite Antecedent-Contained-Deletion relative clauses. Journal of Semantics, 32(4), 579–618Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Levy, R. (2017). Post-hoc analysis decisions drive the reported reading time effects in Hackl, Koster-Hale & Varvoutis (2012). Journal of Semantics, 34, 539–546.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493Google Scholar
Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29(2), 145–206.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 20–49.Google Scholar
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 109–130.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 228–238.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Philips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar
Keating, G. (2014). Eye-tracking with text. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar
Keller, F., Gunasekharan, S., Mayo, N., & Corley, M. (2009). Timing accuracy of Web experiments: A case study using the WebExp software package. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1–12.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (2004). Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Schmeiser, B., Chand, V., Kelleher, A., & Rodriguez, A., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 23). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101–125.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. W. (2008). Eye-catching anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University (LOT Dissertation Series, 90). Utrecht, NL: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT).Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. W. (2010). Looking at anaphora: The psychological reality of the primitives of binding model. In Everaert, M. B. H., Lentz, T., De Mulder, H., Nilsen, Ø., & Zondervan, A., eds., The Linguistics Enterprise: From Knowledge of Language to Knowledge In Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 141–166.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. W., Avrutin, S., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2011). Tracking the preference for bound-variable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. In Runner, J., ed., Experiments at the Interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, 37). Leiden: Brill, pp. 69–100.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 18–40.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2017). Looking forwards and backwards: the real-time processing of strong and weak crossover. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(70). DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.280Google Scholar
Lee, M.-W. (2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentence processing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 51–73.Google Scholar
Lee, S. & O’Grady, W. (2016). Psycholinguistic evidence for inverse scope in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 871–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.Google Scholar
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 475–494.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 569–587.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–20.Google Scholar
Pablos Robles, L., Doetjes, J., & Cheng, L.-S. (2018). Backward dependencies and in-situ wh-questions as test cases on how to approach experimental linguistics research that pursues theoretical linguistics questions. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2237. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02237Google Scholar
Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. & Felser, C. (2019). Delayed application of binding condition C during cataphoric pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(2), 453–475.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 11–47.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Wagers, M., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In Runner, J., ed., Experiments at the Interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, 37). Leiden: Brill, pp. 147–180.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., Barton, S. B., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K., eds., Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
Pittner, K. (1995). The case of German relatives. The Linguistic Review, 12, 197–231.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 261–303.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1971). Crossover Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Lau, E., White, I. D., Dakan, M., Apple, A., & Phillips, C. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 384. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (2011). Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T. & Head, K. D. L. (2014). What can visual world eye-tracking tell us about the binding theory? In Piñón, C., ed., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 10. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP), pp. 269–286.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 89, B1–B13.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Using eye movements as a source of linguistic evidence. In Kepser, S. & Reis, M., eds., Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 393–412.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193–241.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A., Stromswold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns? Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 123–152.Google Scholar
Shan, C.-C. & Barker, C. (2006). Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 91–134.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2013). Syntactic constraints on referential processing. In van Gompel, R. P. G., ed., Sentence Processing. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 136–159.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 542–562.Google Scholar
Tutunjian, D. & Boland, J. E. (2008). Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension. Language and Linguistic Compass, 2, 631–646.Google Scholar
Tutunjian, D., Heinat, F., Klingvall, E., & Wiklund, A.-L. (2017). Processing relative clause extractions in Swedish. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2118. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02118Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., von der Malsburg, T., & Engelmann, F. (2013). What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 125–134.Google Scholar
von der Malsburg, T. & Angele, B. (2016). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–133.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Attraction in comprehension: Representation and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. (2009) Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 161–187.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×