Navigation – Plan du site

Information Structure Affects the Resolution of the Subject Pronouns Er and Der in Spoken German Discourse

Miriam Ellert

Résumé

Two visual-world eye-tracking experiments were designed to investigate the resolution of ambiguous German pronouns, the personal pronoun (er) and the d-pronoun (der) in spoken discourse. Specifically, the influence of the order of mention and the information status of the antecedent candidates on the resolution preferences following canonical and non-canonical antecedent structures was explored. The results suggest that the two pronominal forms have different coreference functions when they follow canonical topic-comment antecedent structures, in that personal pronouns prefer first-mentioned topical antecedents and d-pronouns second-mentioned non-topical antecedents. However, after non-canonically marked topic-focus antecedent structures, the pronouns had overlapping functions, namely an overall preference towards the second-mentioned focused entity. The findings suggest that pronoun resolution is affected by the information status of the antecedent candidates and that resolution preferences change across antecedent word orders.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

  • 1 There are some properties which distinguish d-pronouns from demonstrative forms (...)

1Coherent discourse often entails repeated reference to the same discourse entity, and this is frequently achieved by the use of personal pronouns such as he, she, it. Unlike English, German has two pronominal forms which can refer to the same singular, masculine entity: the personal pronoun er and the d-pronoun (often referred to as a demonstrative pronoun) der1, as illustrated in example [1].

[1] Peteri wollte Tennis spielen. Doch eri/deri war krank.
  ‘Peteri wanted to play tennis. But he [pi/di] was sick.’

2The two forms do not have exactly the same coreference distribution however, as can be seen when more than one potential antecedent is available in the discourse [2].

[2] Peteri wollte mit Hansj Tennis spielen. Doch eri/derj war krank.
  ‘Peteri wanted to play tennis with Hansj. But he [pi/dj] was sick.’

3In this case, er is arguably resolved towards the topical entity (Peter), while the d-pronoun der prefers the non-topical entity (Hans) (Comrie, 1994; Lambrecht, 1994; Diessel, 1999; Bosch et al., 2003); or, as some researchers have claimed, the d-pronoun is marked for non-topical reference, whereas the personal pronoun is neutral in this regard (Zifonun et al., 1997; Ahrenholz, 2007; Bosch & Umbach, 2007; Kaiser, 2011b). Interestingly, the assumptions underlying the different coreference functions of personal and d-pronouns have always been formulated with regard to pragmatic differences between topical and non-topical antecedents. According to Reinhart (1982), topicality is understood as the part of the utterance that the utterance is about. A topical entity is thus a foregrounded entity in terms of information structure. Focused entities are assumed to provide new and unexpected information and are selected from a set of alternatives. Thus, they are also foregrounded entities. If personal pronouns have a tendency to be resolved towards foregrounded referents, then one may assume that they are also more prone to be resolved towards focused entities (vs. non-focused entities). Such a claim can be derived from Joshi and Weinstein (1981) who postulated within “Centering Theory” that the focused element (John) in cleft-constructions such as [3a] serves as the forward-looking centre (John) and is particularly prone to be taken up by a pronoun in the subsequent discourse. The backward-looking centre (Bill) is backgrounded and might therefore be appropriately referred to by explicitly reintroducing it. According to this, a discourse continuation as in [3b] where the pronoun refers to Bill is awkward. Following this line of thought, one might expect that the coreference functions of personal and d-pronouns are similarly affected by focus information such that the personal pronoun prefers the focused entity while the d-pronoun prefers the non-focused entity.

[3a] It was John who hit Bill.
[3b] He was taken to the hospital.

4The fact that the two pronominal forms may show asymmetric resolution patterns is also predicted by many theories of reference (e.g., Levinson, 1987 and 1991; Ariel, 1990 and 2001; Gundel et al., 1993; Gundel, 2003) which assume that the most reduced referring expression, in terms of lexical or prosodic weight (in this case er), resolves towards the most accessible, or cognitively salient referent in the mind of the speaker/hearer. Gundel et al.’s (1993) Givenness Hierarchy further predicts a difference between the resolution of personal pronouns and d-pronouns. This prediction is based on the observation that in English sentences such as [4] (taken from Gundel, 2003), the personal pronoun is resolved towards the first-mentioned topical antecedent (the package), while the demonstrative pronoun may be resolved towards both antecedents (the package, the table).

[4a] The packagei was on the tablej. Thati/j looked new.
[4b] The packagei was on the tablej. Iti looked new.
  • 2 Note that the in focus activation category is used to refer to focus of attention and not (...)

5The personal pronoun requires its antecedent to be in the current focus of attention (Gundel et al.’s in focus status)2, while the demonstrative pronoun only requires its antecedent to be in working memory (Gundel et al.’s activated status) which is the case for both antecedents. It may also have its antecedent in the current focus of attention; however, unlike personal pronouns this condition does not need to be met for the interpretation of d-pronouns resulting in more flexibility in the direction of their resolution patterns. Thus, in this view d-pronouns may be used for topic continuation as well as for topic-shift. Therefore, it may be possible to obtain the same resolution pattern for personal and d-pronouns in German. Note that this prediction is contrary to the idea that d-pronouns are marked for non-topical coreference, while personal pronouns are neutral in this regard (Zifonun et al., 1997; Ahrenholz, 2007; Bosch & Umbach, 2007; Kaiser, 2011b).

6The above theories of reference make predictions on the basis of the salience of referents. This raises the question of what determines the relative accessibility of one potential antecedent over another, a question that has been the subject of debate in many psycholinguistic studies on pronoun resolution. A particularly important issue has been whether this is determined by the grammatical function or the order of mention of the antecedent referents; more precisely, whether subjecthood (Frederiksen, 1981; Crawley et al., 1990) or first-mention makes a referent more accessible (Gernsbacher, 1989). As this is difficult to disentangle in English because the first-mentioned entity is usually also the syntactic subject, researchers have turned to flexible word-order languages such as Finnish and German. By investigating subject-verb-object (SVO) and object-verb-subject (OVS) antecedent structures, they have attempted to identify the effects of order of mention and grammatical role and/or have tested their influences on different pronominal forms (Crawley et al., 1990; Järvikivi et al., 2005; Bosch & Umbach, 2007; Kaiser & Trueswell, 2008; Wilson, 2009). However, as will be shown below, the results are inconsistent. One reason for this could be that previous studies have overlooked the possible influence of the different word orders on information structure.

2. The influence of order of mention, grammatical role and topicality information on the resolution of different pronominal forms

7Regarding previous psycholinguistic results on the resolution of different pronominal forms in German and Finnish, Table 1 shows that while some have found clear influences of grammatical role information on the resolution of personal pronouns (Bouma & Hopp, 2007: for German; Kaiser & Trueswell, 2008: for Finnish) others have found a mixture of grammatical role and order of mention/topicality information (Järvikivi et al., 2005: for Finnish; Wilson, 2009: for German). Similarly, for the resolution of d-pronouns/demonstrative pronouns, either a main influence of order of mention/topicality information has been observed (Bosch & Umbach, 2007: for German; Wilson, 2009: for German) or a mixture of grammatical role and order of mention/topicality information (Kaiser & Trueswell, 2008: for Finnish). Thus, there is a lot of variation in the findings from the above-mentioned studies which may be due to different experimental designs, tasks, materials and languages. However, considering only the resolution preference found after OVS structures (see the last column in Table 1), we observe great similarity between the findings in that there are no first-mentioned preferences for either pronoun (Bosch & Umbach, 2007: for German; Kaiser & Trueswell, 2008: for Finnish; Wilson, 2009: for German). These OVS sentences were used to disentangle the effects of grammatical role from positional effects. The grammatical subject which is more prominent than the object is not in the most prominent position. This might have possibly resulted in no clear preference for the personal pronoun. Another way of looking at these structures is that they are non-canonical compared to canonical SVO structures. Therefore the information status of the antecedents might not be directly comparable across sentence structures; i.e., the second-mentioned subject in OVS structures does not only differ from the second-mentioned object in SVO structures in terms of grammatical role, but also in terms of information structure in that it is focused. This might have affected the results.

Table 1. Overview of results from previous visual-world studies on the resolution of personal and d-pronouns/demonstrative pronouns in German and Finnish (resolution preference for the d-pronoun in bold)

  • 3 Wilson (2009) reports no preference for the personal pronoun following (...)
  • 4 Only two items in this condition.
  • 5 Only two items in this condition.
Antecedent structures
Language Pronouns SVO OVS
Wilson (2009) German personal pronoun no preference3, 2nd → 1st no preference
d-pronoun 2nd 2nd
Bosch et al. (2007) German personal pronoun no preference no preference4
d-pronoun 2nd no preference5
Bouma & Hopp (2007) German personal pronoun 1st 2nd
Kaiser & Trueswell (2008) Finnish personal pronoun 1st 2nd
demonstrative pronoun 2nd 2nd
Järvikivi et al. (2005) Finnish personal pronoun 1st 2nd → no preference

8Previous studies investigating the influence of (contrastive) focus information on the resolution of personal pronouns have come to mixed results. While some studies found an influence of focus information on English pronoun resolution in that personal pronouns were preferred to refer to the entity in focus (Arnold, 1999, Experiment 1; Cowles et al., 2007), others did not find this effect (Arnold, 1999, Experiment 2; Kaiser, 2011a; Colonna et al., 2012). This might be due to the fact that the studies used different sentence materials. All of the studies used cleft constructions. Cowles et al. (2007) used cleft constructions in [5a] and [5b], and found that the personal pronoun was preferred to co-refer to the focused entity (Anne) regardless of whether it was the first- or the second-mentioned entity. As this entity always constituted the grammatical subject of the antecedent sentence this effect cannot be disentangled from effects of grammatical role information.

[5a] A new movie opened in town. It was Anne who called Sarah.
[5b] A new movie opened in town. The one who called Sarah was Anne.
… But later that night, she couldn’t go to the movie after all.

9Arnold (1999, Experiment 1) used cleft constructions as in [6a] which realized the focused entity as the syntactic subject and the non-focused entity as an embedded subject. Sentences with pronominal reference to the focused entity received higher ratings than sentences with explicit name reference. This preference changed in Experiment 2, when she topicalized the embedded subject by pronominalizing it as in [6b]. The participants referred more often to the topicalized entity with a pronoun in their sentence completions than to the focused entity.

[6a] The guests were nervously standing around in the living room, trying to decide which person to talk to. The one Ann decided to say hi to first was Emily. Emily/She looked like the friendliest person in the group. (rating task)
[6b] Ron was looking through his address book, trying to make up his mind. He had an extra ticket to the opera, but he didn’t know which friend to invite. The one he decided on at last was Kysha/Fred. (followed by a sentence completion)

10This operationalization of topicality by pronominalization was also adopted by Kaiser (2011a) and might explain why she found similar results to Arnold (1999, Experiment 2). Note that all of the above studies were undertaken in English. A recent study on the resolution of German and French personal pronouns (Colonna et al., 2012) found that there was even a dis-preference for focused entities in both languages. They used sentence materials as in [7a] and [7b] investigating intra-sentential pronoun resolution unlike the previous studies which investigated inter-sentential pronoun resolution.

[7a] Es ist Peter, der Hans geohrfeigt hat, als er jung war.
  ‘It is Peter who slapped Hans when he was young.’
[7b] Es ist Peter, den Hans geohrfeigt hat, als er jung war.
  ‘It is Peter who Hans slapped when he was young.’

11They argue that participants assumed the topic to be constant across the sentence, because topic shift within a sentence makes it less coherent. As a focused entity usually provides new and unexpected information, it therefore does not qualify as a good coreference candidate for intra-sentential pronoun. Still, it may be possible that focusing an entity may very well have an influence on inter-sentential pronoun resolution as topic-shift may occur in these contexts. Furthermore, it is not yet fully clear how contrastive focus information affects the resolution of different pronominal forms when both antecedents are presented as full lexical noun phrases (NPs), and this is what is addressed in the current study.

3. The current study

12Given the lack of definitive results on the resolution of personal and d-pronouns on the one hand, and the lack of knowledge about the influence of different pragmatic antecedent properties on the other, a visual world eye-tracking task was designed to further investigate this topic. Two pronominal conditions (er vs. der) were created. In Experiment 1, a canonical comparative sentence [8a] preceded the pronominal clause in contrast to Experiment 2, where a non-canonical comparative sentence [8b] was used. Both potential antecedents were presented in nominative case, which allowed us to inspect the influence of order of mention without conflating it with grammatical role information. Nevertheless, although the sentences are free of thematic role information (as is typically the case with SVO sentences), they still contain subject verb agreement marking NP1 in [8a] and NP2 in [8b] as the syntactic subject of the sentence. However, as Kaiser (2011a: 1628) has pointed out, the commonly found “subjecthood preference is probably related to a preference for antecedents that are syntactically and semantically prominent”. Therefore, we take the current materials to reduce effects of the subjecthood preference to a minimum. In the materials of Experiment 1, NP1 is the foregrounded entity by means of topicality and it is the first-mentioned entity (showing subject verb agreement). This should make it particularly available for the resolution of the personal pronoun while NP2 should be preferred by the d-pronoun.

[8a] Der Schrank ist schwerer als der Tisch. Er/Der stammt aus einem Möbelgeschäft in Belgien.
  The cupboard is heavier than the table. It [p/d] comes from a furniture store in Belgium.’
[8b] Schwerer als der Tisch ist der Schrank. Er/Der stammt aus einem Möbelgeschäft in Belgien.
  ‘Heavier than the table is the cupboard. It [p/d] comes from a furniture store in Belgium.’
  • 6 Actually this also fits with the experimental set-up where participants saw the pictures (...)

13To keep the type of construction comparable across experiments, in Experiment 2 we used the same sentence materials, but presented them in a non-canonical structure [8b]. Note however that this is a different focus construction than the cleft-constructions used in previous experiments (Arnold, 1999; Cowles et al., 2007; Kaiser, 2011a; Colonna et al., 2012). In the comparative constructions, NP2 (the cupboard) constitutes the entity in focus as it is an answer to the wh-question “Which piece of furniture is heavier than the table?”. Thus, NP2 (the cupboard) is in contrastive focus6. It is foregrounded in terms of information structure. The question is whether this foregrounding makes NP2 more available for the personal pronoun and what sort of effect this has on the resolution of the d-pronoun (see predictions next section).

14The participants viewed a screen which showed pictures of the potential antecedent candidates (e.g., cupboard and table), and their eye movements were recorded while they listened to the experimental sentences. On hearing the critical pronoun (either er or der), looks towards one of the pictures was taken as an indication of the participants’ preferred referent for the pronoun that they had just heard (see, e.g., Altmann & Kamide [1999] for more details on the assumptions behind the visual-world paradigm). In Experiment 1, it was hypothesized that if order of mention were important, then when hearing personal pronouns, participants would prefer to resolve it towards the first-mentioned topical antecedent and d-pronouns towards the second-mentioned non-topical entity. Furthermore, if the d-pronoun is indeed marked for coreference to non-topical entities while the personal pronoun is neutral in this regard, as has been suggested previously (Zifonun et al., 1997; Ahrenholz, 2007; Bosch & Umbach, 2007; Kaiser, 2011b), we might expect a higher degree of ambiguity for the personal pronoun than for the d-pronoun. On the other hand, if, according to the Givenness Hierarchy (Gundel et al., 1993; Gundel, 2003) we consider d-pronouns to be more neutral in their coreference relations and personal pronouns to be more constrained in this respect (due to the necessary in focus criterion), then we would expect to find the reverse pattern, in that more ambiguity would be expected in the resolution of the d-pronoun. Thus, in the case of more ambiguity it was predicted that we would observe a relatively equal number of looks to the two depicted potential antecedent candidates which would last for a relatively longer period of time in the case of unmarked forms compared to marked forms.

15In the second experiment, it was investigated whether changing the word order of the antecedent clause would affect the resolution patterns. More specifically, it was asked whether the preferences following non-canonical structures would be different from the preferences following canonical structures, i.e., whether the information status (focus vs. non-focus) or the order of mention of the antecedent candidates (first vs. second mention) would be more likely to affect the preferences. On the one hand, theoretical accounts of reference (Levinson, 1987 and 1991; Ariel, 1990 and 2001; Bosch et al., 2003) predict an asymmetric resolution pattern for the two types of pronouns, irrespective of whether higher salience were due to pragmatic topic or focus encodings, such that the more reduced form (er) should co-refer with the most highly salient referent, and the fuller form (der) with the less salient antecedent. On the other hand, non-canonical word order could make the focused entity a particularly prominent candidate for future reference, and this would therefore predict a similar preference for personal and d-pronouns.

4. Experiment 1: pronoun resolution after canonical antecedent structures

4.1. Method

4.1.1. Participants

1628 native speakers of German (22 female) participated in the study. The participants were students at the Radboud University Nijmegen or employees at the Max-Planck Institute (MPI) for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen. They were aged between 20 and 31 years (mean = 23.25; SD = 2.68). All participants were tested individually and were paid a nominal fee for their participation. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision.

4.1.2. Apparatus

17Participants’ eye movements were recorded with an SR Research EyeLink II eye tracker. The eye tracker is an infrared video-based system with a head-mounted camera. Only the dominant eye was recorded. A sampling rate of 500 Hz was used which monitored gaze locations every 2 ms. The camera was calibrated using a nine-point grid extending over the whole screen. A drift correction was performed before each trial. The resulting spatial accuracy was at least 0.5° of arc.

4.1.3. Materials and design

1824 experimental items were constructed, each beginning with a comparative antecedent sentence of the type NP1-verb-comparative-NP2 that introduced both referents with a singular masculine definite NP, one in preverbal and one in postverbal position (see [8a]). Both NPs appeared in nominative case. An SVO main clause followed, which constituted the target clause and started with a subject pronoun. The subject pronoun was either a personal pronoun er or a d-pronoun der, yielding two experimental conditions. Each trial ended with a third sentence, as in [9] below. The sentence segments immediately following the pronoun were constructed to be free of (semantic) bias towards either entity and to make the discourses fully ambiguous throughout the duration of the whole trial.

19Two lists of each of the 24 experimental items were then created, either containing a personal or a d-pronoun, counterbalanced in a latin square design. Additional 48 filler items were created, half of which started with a comparative structure, and the other half containing only non-comparative clause structures. The comparative fillers presented two NPs of the same gender without being followed by a subsequent subject pronoun as in [9].

[9] Das Telefon ist lauter als das Radio. Die Zuschauer fühlten sich sehr gestört, als das Telefon im Theater während der Vorstellung klingelte. Das war eine peinliche Situation.
  ‘The phone is louder than the radio. The audience felt very annoyed when the phone rang during the theatre performance. That was an embarrassing situation.’

20The total of 72 items was split into two experimental blocks, and the order of the blocks was counterbalanced between-participants. The order of the stimuli within the blocks was pseudo-randomized. Additionally, five non-comparative practice trials were constructed.

  • 7 The first sound files for both conditions are provided in the Appendix.

21Each item was read aloud by a male native German speaker and digitally recorded to a computer hard disk. The experimental items were recorded separately for each condition to avoid splicing effects. Thus, although the first sentence had the same content across conditions, it was recorded separately7. The items were cut into two separate sound files using Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2009) as in [10a] and [10b], the first sound file playing the antecedent sentence and the second one starting with the critical pronoun.

[10a] Sound file 1: Der Schrank ist schwerer als der Tisch.
                      ‘The cupboard is heavier than the table.’
[10b] Sound file 2: Er stammt aus einem Möbelgeschäft in Belgien. Das Sofa soll                     nächste Woche geliefert werden.
                      ‘It comes from a furniture store in Belgium. The sofa is                      supposed to be delivered next week.’

22Each experimental screen showed three pictures for each trial. The pictures were taken from the MPI picture database. Each picture was presented in a 288 x 288 pixel frame and appeared on three positions on a 1,024 x 768 pixel screen in triangular manner: top left (171, 167) and top right corner (855, 167) and lower central position (512, 599). Each experimental trial contained two target pictures (e.g., the cupboard, the table) which either appeared in top left or top right position, and a discourse-related non-target picture (e.g., the sofa) which appeared in the lower central position. The position of the target pictures was counterbalanced between items. Each target picture appeared once during the experiment.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the pictures appearing on the screen during the visual-world eye-tracking task (adapted by the publisher). The above pictures (cupboard, table) show the two target referents and the picture below (sofa) shows a discourse-related non-target referent

Figure 1.               Schematic representation of the pictures appearing on the screen               during the visual-world eye-tracking task (adapted by the               publisher). The above pictures (cupboard, table) show the two target               referents and the picture below (sofa) shows a discourse-related               non-target referent

4.1.4. Procedure

23Each trial began with a drift correction to compensate for minor head movements. After this, the experimental display containing the three pictures was presented. The display was shown for 1,000 ms before the onset of the first sound file. After the first sound file, the pictures on the screen disappeared and a fixation cross was presented for 1,500 ms in the middle of the screen at equal distance from each of the three pictures to avoid fixations on the critical characters at pronoun onset. The experimental display reappeared and the second sound file with the critical pronoun was played simultaneously. Participants were presented with three practice items prior to the experimental blocks. Additionally, one practice item was placed at the beginning of each experimental block. Between the two experimental blocks, the participants paused (ca. 5 min) and the camera was turned off. At the beginning of each block, the camera was recalibrated and validated.

24The participants were informed that they would hear mini stories and see related pictures on the screen. They were told that once in a while a content question would appear on the screen and were instructed to answer the question by clicking the left mouse button for “yes” and the right mouse button for “no”. In order to ensure that they paid attention to the mini stories, they were given immediate visual feedback on the correctness of their answer. The accuracy of the responses was very high with 95% correct answers (24 questions; mean correct answers = 22.79, SD = 1.01). Each session lasted approximately 45 minutes.

4.2. Results

  • 8 Due to technical problems with the hardware set-up (namely the presentation (...)

25For each 4 ms time point starting 200 ms prior to the pronoun onset until 2,000 ms after the pronoun onset (551 time points in total), it was coded whether participants fixated the first- or the second-mentioned character. For the statistical analyses, these time points were aggregated into larger time windows of 200 ms. During the time window starting 200 ms before the pronoun onset the participants saw a fixation cross, i.e., no pictures were shown. However, if they had already looked at a target region even though it was blank, then these looks were excluded from the analysis (Altmann & Kamide, 1999; Järvikivi et al., 2005)8. This cleaning procedure was chosen to ensure that these looks were not caused by the post-processing of the first sound file or by memory specific effects and that all target looks entering the analysis would therefore inform us about the pronoun resolution preferences. Thus, 42 looks (< 1%) were excluded resulting in a total of 4,577 fixations that entered the analysis. Figure 2 presents the time course of the effects for the 200 ms analysis regions.

Figure 2. Probability of fixating the first-and second-mentioned referent as a function of time in each of the two conditions (personal pronoun, d-pronoun) in Experiment 1

Figure 2.             Probability of fixating the first-and second-mentioned referent as             a function of time in each of the two conditions (personal             pronoun, d-pronoun) in Experiment 1

26The eye-tracking data were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models (Baayen, 2008; Baayen et al., 2008) with participants and items as a crossed-random factor and condition (er vs. der) and order of mention (1st vs. 2nd) as fixed predictors. The interaction between condition and order of mention was only considered when the saturated model predicted the outcome significantly better than the one without the interaction. The proportions of fixations (relative to all looks) to the first-mentioned and second-mentioned target pictures were transformed into empirical logits (Barr, 2008), and entered the analysis as the dependent measure. Loglikelihood analyses (ANOVp/pronoun resolution preferences. pe depencond-meToun reanalysis as the dependena total of rparate sound files using2    T std → no preferencece   In lliransfod → no preferencece    ‘It c3e fi condition andd → no preference     P looks consider:E vs. 2nd) asd → no preferencece  /diThe : >2nd → no preferencece  /Iwas only e delivered next week.d → no preference     1d → no preferencece  /0-00d → no preferencece  /0.06 (0.901innish ce  /-0.01 (-0. 599nnish ce  /d → no preference     2nnish ce  /00-400d → no preferencece  /0.2 in.223innish ce  /-0.17 (-ely 99nnish ce  /d → no preference     3nnish ce  /400-600d → no preferencece  /0.18 (0.92innish ce  /-0.23 (-el191innish ce  /d → no preference     4nnish ce  /600-800d → no preferencece  /0.5 in.79)in Bd → no preferencece  /0.4 in.422innish ce  /-0.81 i 033)in*d → no preference     5nnish ce  /800-st sod → no preferencece  /0.53 in.823)in Bd → no preferencece  /0.93 i3. 58)in**d → no preferencece  /-el16 i 81)in**d → no preference     6d → no preferencece  /st so-st00d → no preferencece  /0.91 i3.026)in**d → no preferencece  /1.35 i4.527)in***d → no preferencece  /-el84 i 4.354)in***d → no preference     7d → no preferencece  /st2so-st400d → no preferencece  /0.65 i2.139)in*d → no preferencece  /1.05 i3.487)in***d → no preferencece  /-el47 i 3.428)in**d → no preference     8d → no preferencece  /st4so-st600d → no preferencece  /0.86 i2.829)in**d → no preferencece  /0.96 i3. 5)in**d → no preferencece  /-el76 i 4.096)in***d → no preference     9d → no preferencece  /st6so-st800d → no preferencece  /0.53 in.769)in Bd → no preferencece  /0.7 i2.314)in*d → no preferencece  /-el3 i 3.063)in**d → no preference     10d → no preferencece  /st800-timed → no preferencece  /0.56 in.858)in Bd → no preferencece  /0.55 in.826)in Bd → no preferencece  /-el29 i 3.0 5)in**d → no preference

22Each experimental screen showed three 7 using led th. In the ma der) considered when the saturated m577  posmar> /em>action. Thnnnnnnnnnnnnorm>action. Thn a sen star(600-time poi<, fiephnnnnnnnnnnnnther st 4n6">(..td entitiel preasmar> /em>action. Thnnnnnnnnnnnned th. In t duri lo non-caconsideree600-800 poi mpirical logits,r on thet a sen td enti enttion the one hand, candidaransformed into empirical logit

m an inthe other hand, enti entth thl of e classnnnnnnnnnnnt towards ambi
    In lliransfod → no preferencece    ‘It c2e fi condition anin B . The : >2nd → no preference  /ng to thed → no preference ce  /600-800d → no preferencece  /-0.41 (-el402innish ce  /0.4 in.463innish ce  /800-st sod → no preferencece  /-0.24 (-0.8099nnish ce  /0.93 i3. 43) **d → no preference  /st so-st00d → no preferencece  /-0.49 (-el6499nnish ce  /1.35 (4.495) ***d → no preference  /st2so-st400d → no preferencece  /-0.41 (-el342innish ce  /1.05 i3.5499 ***d → no preference  /st4so-st600d → no preferencece  /-0.81 i 656) **d → no preferencece  /0.96 i3. 42) **d → no preference  /st6so-st800d → no preferencece  /-0.61 i 018) *d → no preferencece  /0.7 i2.314) *d → no preference  /st800-timed → no preferencece  /-0.74 i 457) *d → no preferencece  /0.55 in.805) Bd → no preference

222">4.2. Results 3

Discus. 10

25For each 4 ms time point starting 3 32 r hard ) participated i(18nts were) and lower cent to ere =ho(ven < fi Each , nos">8. This cleaning procedure 10 /ul> 10 1 to class="texte">141">4.1.1. Participants 6 5rex"texte">17Participants’ eye movements were 33 twoae">4.1.3. Materials and 7 5rex

1824 experimental items were 3 they randomiz personpn aalty thmber">18

  T std → no preferencece
    P other hand → no preferencece
    4nnish
    5nnish
    6d → no preferencece
    7d → no preferencece
    8d → no preferencece
    9d → no preferencece
    10d → no preferencece
[9] Das Telefon ist 1la Schrank ist schwerer als der TisccccccccccccccStr> <
                      ‘It comes from a furniture store in BeH ecallllllllllllperimenreferen
[10b] Sound file 2: E1 stammt aus einem Möbelgeschäft in Belgien. Das Sofa soll                     nächste Woche geliefert werden.
  Sound file 2:                  ‘It comes from a furniture store in Belgium. The sofa is                      supposed to be delivered next week.’
  class="paranumber">222">4.1.3. Materials and 8 5rex"texte">23Each trial began with a drift 35 they we looks wthe Vp/pn aall" correct answers rt changing thI picture database. p/pn aall" corrcross conditions, ihanging thefiephnm an ounterbalanc as shown for rot

picture apamoakee h thaavail creen in the phone rang durih with 95% corr24 questibo a sescreen and were tions; me4n correct answers = 22.79, SD = session last

4.1. Method 5

5r"textandnotes">
    Each trial began with a drift 37 usiAssther en changing thred and a fixatiover, if to the e classt transformed into empirica x appear fixanc d-menti rentered the analysisa crossed-ranln pffect models (Baayeayen et al., 2008) wi second-mentio p conditcus) or asmeasure. (er d a fixatiov , 2 looks considered wh. The (en con xation and oBerst sh pleferences. omin. The pictan on on ly betdin < fil"i(.arf e classffecterednyem> second
      Figure 2. Probability of fixating the first-an3 second-mentioned referent as a func transformed into e of the tcrossed-ranls(personal pronoun, d-pronoun) in Experiment 1

      Figure 2.             Probab3lity of fixating the first-a3d second-mentioned referent as             a fun    transformed into e of the tcrossed-rannls(personal            pronoun, d-pronoun) in Experiment 1</p><a href=Agrandir Original (png, 83k)
3
9

26The eye-tracking data were analyzed 38 using lnd cupboart 2 The piaaoutcoseen ader) or irst.e. more ambinoun der) Each trialy of fixating the Tand -a4d second-menta rel="nof 2d d-pronoufstanc ions. ocedTand au4"he eye-trackingd>    T std → no preferencece   In lliransfod → no preferencece    ‘It c2e fi condition andd → no preference     P looks consider:E vs. 2nd) asd → no preferencece  /diThe : >2nd → no preference     1d → no preferencece  /0-00d → no preferencece  /-0.05 (-0.552innish ce  /0.02 (0.2599nnish     2nnish ce  /00-400d → no preferencece  /0 (0.om9)d → no preferencece  /0.52 i3.255) **d → no preference     3nnish ce  /400-600d → no preferencece  /0.02 (0.112innish ce  /0.7 i3.7299 ***d → no preference     4nnish ce  /600-800d → no preferencece  /-0.06 (-0.3199nnish ce  /1.22 (6.1989 ***d → no preference     5nnish ce  /800-st sod → no preferencece  /-0.23 (-el1399nnish ce  /1.75 (8.5899 ***d → no preference     6d → no preferencece  /st so-st00d → no preferencece  /-0.24 (-1.2069nnish ce  /1.98 (9.824) ***d → no preference     7d → no preferencece  /st2so-st400d → no preferencece  /-0.27 (-el324)nnish ce  /1.93 (9.484) ***d → no preference     8d → no preferencece  /st4so-st600d → no preferencece  /-0.17 (-0.8599nnish ce  /1.91 (9.431) ***d → no preference     9d → no preferencece  /st6so-st800d → no preferencece  /-0.25 (-1.241innish ce  /1.92 (9.413) ***d → no preference     10d → no preferencece  /st800-timed → no preferencece  /0 (-0.014)nnish ce  /2 (9.879) ***d → no preference   class="paranumber">222">4.2. Results 6

5r Discus.

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Miriam Ellert, « Information Structure Affects the Resolution of the Subject Pronouns Er and Der in Spoken German Discourse », Discours [En ligne], 12 | 2013, mis en ligne le 10 juillet 2013, consulté le 16 décembre 2017. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/discours/8756 ; DOI : 10.4000/discours.8756

Haut de page

Auteur

Miriam Ellert

Courant Research Centre “Text Structures”
University of Göttingen, Germany

Haut de page
  • Logo PUC
  • OpenEdition Journals