(In)animacy and (In)transitivity Bias in Sentence Processing

GJ De Guzman, Biological Sciences; Dr. Amit Almor & Mr. Peter Nelson, Psychology & Linguistics

Background
Language’s power as an instrument of communication arises from the combination of words into sentences and
the subsequent collection of those sentences to relay the intended information. Therefore, sentences become the basic unit
of language that encompasses the foundation for understanding the suprasentential levels of language (Stock, 1970).
Recent research in sentence processing assumes that the reader cumulatively parses the sentence, with each consecutive
word modifying and updating the original understanding and incorporating it into predictions about upcoming words
(Altmann & Kamide, 2007; Sedivy et al, 1999). Due to the limitations of time, memory and attentional resources,
sentence processing is influenced by many different sources of information (e.g., syntactic, semantic, probabilistic) with
some information sources becoming prioritized over others. An ongoing research project under Dr. Almor and Mr. Nelson
investigates the influence of noun animacy on sentence processing.
Previous research shows that the noun animacy provides guidance in sentence processing because people have
different syntactic and semantic expectations following animate nouns, which are associated with agency, or being the
doer in an event, in comparison to inanimate nouns, which usually can’t be the doer in an event. For example, a sentence
starting with an animate noun (e.g., The doctor found…) is ambiguous because the doctor can either be the subject or the
object of “found” (The doctor found the exit… vs. The doctor found by the woman…). In contrast, an inanimate noun (e.g.,
The book found…) is unambiguous because books can’t find things; and therefore, readers will expect “found” to be part
of a relative clause (The book found by the woman…). Indeed, animate nouns lead readers to expect a transitive syntactic
construction and therefore encounter difficulty when reading by the woman, but after inanimate nouns this difficulty is
absent (Mak et al 2006; Traxler et al 2005; Trueswell et al 1994).
Our research project uses self-paced reading to examine the relationship between noun animacy and an
expectations for transitive syntactic constructions. In sentences like 1a, readers tend to expect the frog to fit into the
sentence as the object of the verb, rather than as the subject of a new clause (van Gompel & Pickering, 2001). The
reader’s expectation provides a false interpretation which can be observed as a significant increase in processing time at
the disambiguating portion jumped away. Here, the witch has to be reinterpreted not as the one doing the cooking, but the
one being cooked, which slows reading time. In 1b, the inanimacy of the noun the soup should cause readers to expect an
intransitive construction; and therefore, not show an increase in reading time. Expectations about syntactic structures are
also dependent on verb bias (how frequently a verb is used in a particular form). For example, the verb cook is used
frequently in both transitive and intransitive forms, but the verb fly is much more frequently used as an intransitive. Verb
bias also has an effect on reading and sentence processing (Garnsey et al 2003; Wilson & Garnsey, 2009). One aim of this
research is to better understand how animacy and verb bias interact with each other to influence sentence processing.

1a. As the witch cooked the frog jumped away.

1b. As the soup cooked the frog jumped away.

Research Statement
This study aims to extend previous research on the effects of animacy and transitivity bias in sentence processing.
Specifically, this study will examine the effects of animate vs. inanimate subjects on processing sentences with
transitively biased and intransitively biased verbs.

Project Goals and Training Objectives

The primary goal of this study is to measure the effects of animacy and transitivity biases in sentence processing,
using a word-by-word self-paced reading moving window paradigm. The training objectives of this study are to: (1) gain
further experience designing, implementing, analyzing and interpreting human-based research, (2) gain experience with
and understanding of statistical analysis methods in experimental research, particularly using linear mixed model
regressions and the R software package, (3) gain experience with using and tagging corpus data, (4) gain understanding
and experience with issues related to testing human participants (IRB approval has already been granted for this study but
further work will require amendments and/or a new application).

Project Significance
This research project will add to the body of knowledge on the simultaneous use of multiple cues in sentence
processing. Specifically, this study will help clarify the joint roles of animacy and verbs’ transitivity bias in sentence
processing. In doing so, the research will increase our understanding of the relationship between verb class and animacy.
Project Design and Methodology
Participants will be recruited through the Department of Psychology Participant Pool (SONA) and will receive
extra credit as compensation. The research project itself consists of multiple experiments with each experiment
manipulating different aspects of noun animacy and verb type. The stimuli for Experiment One contain paired
animate/inanimate subject sentences with (a) verbs that cannot be transitive and (b) verbs that can be either transitive or
intransitive. Experiment Two manipulates the animacy of the second noun, using the same verbs. All experiments will
also contain filler sentences that will ensure participants don’t develop fixed response patterns unique to the experiment.
Using the word-by-word moving window paradigm as shown in Figure 1 requires participants to comprehend one word at
a time since the rest of the words are replaced by x’s. Participants will press the spacebar to move from word to word.
This allows us to measure their reading times of each word in the sentence separately. At the end of each sentence, the
participant will answer a yes/no comprehension question about the sentence using the space bar for ‘yes’ and the shift key
for ‘no’. This will ensure that participants read the sentences for comprehension. The experiment will be programmed and
controlled by the E-Prime 2.0 software running on a Dell computer. This experiment will be held in the Institute of Mind
and Brain under the supervision of both Dr. Amit Almor and Mr. Peter Nelson. Data collection on different experiments
in this project has been ongoing since this January 2018 and data analysis has been ongoing since the Summer of 2018.
My responsibilities in this project include assisting with the creation of experimental stimuli and filler sentences for the
new experiments, launching and preparing the study for the participants and helping with the statistical analysis of the
results. I will also assist with the tagging of corpus data for each of the verbs used in the study, creating a database from
pre-existing corpora (e.g. TreeBank, COCA) that reflects the frequency each verb appears (a) in transitive and intransitive
forms and (b) the animacy of the nouns used in each form.

Figure 1: Example of the moving window paradigm: "As the bird flew past the furnace burned."

1 As xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

2 Xx the xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
3 Xx xxx bird xxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
4 Xs xxx xxxx flew xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx.
…

Project Timeline
Task Project Timeline 2018-2019
Description
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May
Literature
X X X X X X X X
Review
Design
X X
Experiment
Data Collection X X X X X X X
Data Analysis X X X X X X X
Corpus Tagging X X X X X X X
Discover USC X

Anticipated Results and Dissemination

The results of this study will demonstrate the effect of noun animacy (or lack thereof), on processing sentences
like 1a and 1b with different biased verbs. Animate nouns coupled with transitive biased verbs are predicted to result in
longer processing times than comparable sentences with inanimate nouns. These results will extend the scope of current
research to include evidence from intransitive sentences. I plan to present the findings at Discover USC in April of 2019.

Personal Statement
Growing up speaking Tagalog (Filipino) at home and English at school, I’ve always wondered about how humans
learn language. My subsequent pursuit of a Neuroscience minor at USC helped me approach this question from a
scientific perspective. Working in Dr. Almor’s lab, first as a volunteer in Spring 2018, and now through an independent
study, has allowed me to gain some first-hand experience in conducting research. Getting the Magellan award will allow
me to significantly increase my understanding and involvement in the research enterprise, and ready myself for my next
step, following my graduation from USC - attending medical school while pursuing an M.D./Ph.D. in the social sciences.
 References

Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge:
Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and
Language, 57(4), 502-518.

Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing:
Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68(3), 255-278.

Becker, M. (2015). Animacy and the Acquisition of Tough Adjectives. Language Acquisition, 22(1), 68-103.

Bornkessel‐Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real‐time
comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross‐linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1),
19-58.

Christianson, K. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified,
or shallow language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 817-828.

Dekydtspotter, L., & Seo, H. K. (2017). Transitivity in the Processing of Intransitive Clauses: A Category-Based
Prediction in Low-Intermediate Learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 527-552.

Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and
Language, 30(6), 725-745.

Friedmann, N., Taranto, G., Shapiro, L. P., & Swinney, D. (2008). The leaf fell (the leaf): The online processing of
unaccusatives. Linguistic inquiry, 39(3), 355-377.

Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2011). The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1472-1504.

Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological
Society, 102(2), 199-225.

Lempert, H. (1989). Animacy constraints on preschool children's acquisition of syntax. Child Development, 237-245.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59-67.

Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks
crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466-490.

Meltzer-Asscher, A., Mack, J. E., Barbieri, E., & Thompson, C. K. (2015). How the brain processes different dimensions
of argument structure complexity: Evidence from fMRI. Brain and language, 142, 65-75.

Rakison, D. H., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2001). Developmental origin of the animate–inanimate distinction. Psychological
bulletin, 127(2), 209.

Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(8), 299-309.

Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic
interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71(2), 109-147.

Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., & Hadar, U. (2010). The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and
unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(10), 2306-2315.

Stock, William A. (1970). “Suprasentential Organization in Language.” Retrospective Thesis and Dissertations. 4364.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/4634.
Szewczyk, Jakub M., Herbert Shriefers (2010). “Is animacy special? ERP correlates of semantic violations and animacy
violations in sentence processing.” Brain Research. 1368: 208-221. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.10.070.

Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the
processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(2), 204-224.

Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role
information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of memory and language, 33(3), 285.

Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current
constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 225-258.

Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative
sentences. Psychophysiology, 36(5), 559-570.
For instructions on completing this form: http://www.sc.edu/our/doc/BUDGETInstructionsforWORD.pdf

Magellan Scholar BUDGET FORM

Student’s Name: GJ Khenneth De Guzman

Double-click on table to enter data

Budget Justification/Description
NOTE: Magellan Scholar awards are processed through “E” funds. All expenditures MUST remain compliant with E fund procurement
requirements. All budgets must be reviewed by department business managers prior to submission.

Student Salary: Indicate estimated number of student research hours per week and hourly rate separated by semesters when student is enrolled in
classes or not enrolled in classes (generally fall or spring vs summer semesters). Time during breaks (Fall, Winter or Spring break) are still hours
during semesters of enrolled classes.
1. In Class (Spring Semester): 15 hrs/wk x 14 weeks = 210 hours

Materials/Supplies: Indicate items, quantity, and estimated price. Be sure to include taxes on all purchases.
Are you requesting funds for participant incentives? You must attach an approval memo from business manager – see guidebook.
1. Discovery USC printing and materials: $100

Travel: Indicate location, purpose of travel, provide itemized costs (list out each cost separately: transportation, lodging, registration, etc). For
conferences, provide name of conference, dates, and explain why this conference is most appropriate. No more than $1000 is permitted for
conference travel.