Logacev and Vasishth Version 1

Binding interference in sentence comprehension
New data and theory

Pavel Logacev and Shravan Vasishth

Current theories of similarity-based interference (SBI) claim that
when one feature (such as animacy or NP-type) is common (matches)
between noun phrases (NPs), the discriminability of the NPs degrades
during encoding as well as retrieval (Gordon et al 2007; Van Dyke and
McElree 2006; Lewis, Vasishth, & Van Dyke 2006), (Suckow et al. 2006).
These theories predict that interference should increase when two or
more features match. However, a German reading study using eyetracking
suggests otherwise: we found that when one feature matches between
NPs, processing (reading) time is slower during retrieval, but when
two features match, processing time is faster.

This surprising facilitation effect can be explained through an
independently motivated theory of feature binding proposed by Hommel
et al. (1998) in the context of visual processing.

The assumption is that objects in memory are composed of feature
bundles that are bound pairwise to each other. A pair of NP-features
(e.g., gender and NP-type) is termed non-conflicting if both are
associated with the same NP (complete match). If one of two bound
features (e.g., NP-type) has the same value for two different NPs, the
features conflict (complete mismatch): the common NP-type feature has a
conflicting binding with differently-valued (e.g., masc/fem)
gender-features of the two NPs. The central claim is that interference
is caused by binding conflicts. The amount of interference experienced
is crucially dependent on the proportion of shared features: when the
proportion is high, facilitation results, when low, traditional
interference effects result.

A remarkable fact is that the binding-interference theory can not only
explain the traditional SBI results which involve the mismatch of a
single feature, and the surprising facilitation effect when two
features mismatch, but also an intiguing and seemingly unrelated
phenomenon, the case-matching effect in German.

As discussed by Bader & Meng (1998) and Schlesewsky (1996), the
case-matching effect is that it is that, when a verb is read that
takes an accusative or dative object, it is easier to resolve a
temporary case ambiguity of an NP (e.g., of Operasaengerinnen, (1a,b))
towards accusative, respectively dative when a coreferent pronoun
intervening between the NP and the verb's argument-features has
accusative or dative case. Here, the relatively high proportion of
shared features between the coreferent NPs results in the
facilitation, as predicted by the binding-interference theory.

We also present two other eyetracking experiments that provide further
evidence consistent with the predictions of the binding-interference
theory for case-matching effects.

In sum, the binding-interference theory furnishes a unifying
explanation for (i) traditional SBI effects, (ii) the surprising
facilitation effect when feature matches are increased, and (iii)
seemingly unrelated and otherwise puzzling case-matching effects. In
addition to its wide coverage of surprising results that traditional
theories cannot explain, the binding-interference account has the
virtue of being independently motivated (Hommel et al 1998).


...dass man...
that one
(a) Opernsaengerinnen, obwohl man sie-ACC verehrt, begruflen sollte...
opera singers although one them adores greet should
(b) Opernsaengerinnen, obwohl man ihnen-DAT misstraut, begruflen sollte...
opera singers although one them distrusts greet should

We present three further eyetracking experiments that vary (a) gender and
noun type of NPs (b)

References:

[coming soon]