Just do it!

Colin PhillipsDept of Linguistics

Cogn. Neurosci. of Language LabUniversity of Maryland

“As for my own methods of investigation, I do not really have any. The only method of investigation is to look hard at a serious problem and try to get some ideas as to what might be the explanation for it, meanwhile keeping an open mind about all sorts of other possibilities. Well, that is not a method. It is just being reasonable.” (Chomsky 1988, p. 190)

Does the title reflect a deep philosophical point?

…perhaps Feyerabend’s “Anything goes”?

Not really…

nike.co.jp

“Dice-K”

Hajime’s 2 questions…1. “What aspects of language are expected to be analyzable,

and to what extent? I.e., what is the object of explanation for linguistic research?”

2. “How can linguistic research make progress?”

Linguistics: The Real-time Nature of Linguistic Computation

Psycholinguistics:The Linguistic Sophistication of Real-time Computation

Cognitive Neuroscience:Using Real-time Brain Recordings to Understand Linguistic Computation

Computational Neuroscience:Neural Modeling of Linguistic Computation

Answer 1: linguisticcomputation at all levels

Answer 2• Explicit linking hypotheses

• Theoretical elegance

• Language variation + language learning (what to do with microvariation)

• More systematic judgment data

Acceptability Judgment Studies

• Careful controls

– Minimal pairs– Plausibility controls– Latin square designs

• Many items (guide: at least 3 x number of conditions)• Many participants (guide: 10-20 is usually plenty)• Fun with statistics!• Where’s the action?

– Dependent measure: no big deal (scalar rating, Magnitude Estimation, …)– Materials are a huge deal, including filler items– Participants’ understanding of the task– For much discussion & data cf. Jon Sprouse 2007 PhD thesis

Japanese (a)soko (Hoji 1991, 1995, Ueyama, 1999)

Dono-kaisya-mo soko-no kogaisya-o suisensita.every-company-mo soko-gen subsidiary-acc recommended‘Every companyi recommended itsi subsidiary.’

*Dono-kaisya-mo asoko-no kogaisya-o suisensita.every-company-mo asoko-gen subsidiary-acc recommended‘*Every companyi recommended itsi subsidiary.’

Reconstruction effects

Soko-no kogaisya-o dono-kaisya-mo suisensita.soko-gen subsidiary-acc every-company-mo recommended‘Every companyi recommended itsi subsidiary.’

Asoko-no kogaisya-o dono-kaisya-mo suisensita.Asoko-gen subsidiary-acc every-company-mo recommended‘*Every companyi recommended itsi subsidiary.’

Acceptability Rating StudyII. Acceptability rating study (n = 48)

Context: A president and his secretary are discussing the current business situations of automobile companies. The president says,…

(A) Simbunkiji-niyoruto, [sokoi-no itiban yakunitatanai yakuin]-o Newspapers-by soko-gen most useless executive-acc [dono jidoosyagaisyai]-mo kubinisita toiu hookoku-ga dehajimeta-rasii. every automobile company-mo fired that report-nom appeaedr-seem ‘The newspaper says that there appears a report that to its most useless

employee, every automobile company fired.’

(B) *Simbunkiji-niyoruto, [sokoi-no itiban yakunitatanai yakuin]-ga Newspapers-by soko-gen most useless executive-acc [dono jidoosyagaisyai]-mo uttaeta toiu hookoku-ga dehajimeta-rasii. every automobile company-mo sued that report-nom appeaedr-seem ‘The newspaper says that there appears a report that its most useless employee

sued every automobile company.’

ACC-NOM order

NOM-ACC order

Aoshima, Yoshida, & Phillipsin press, Syntax

Claim 1: Judgment data is a major impediment to progress

Claim 3: Asymmetry* sentences uniformly judged BADok sentences mixed GOOD and BAD judgments

Claim 2: Explicit model of acceptability judgments

Ueyama 2007

1. Are Judgment Data Hurting Us?

• Careful judgment experiments yield few surprises

– Sentences with parasitic gaps just as good as sentences without(Phillips 2006, Language; Wagers & Phillips, submitted)

– Effects of Condition C across various contexts(Kazanina, Lau, Lieberman, Yoshida & Phillips 2007, J. of Memory & Language)

– etc., etc.

• Major theoretical choices are disconnected from empirical details (surprisingly)

• Need p < .05 ? Ask 6 friends! (1/25 = 0.03)

Ueyama 2007 Townsend & Bever 2002

2. Is the Judgment Model Correct?

It is very hard to find evidence of computation distinct from parsing & production that yields different judgments, different interpretations.

Immediate Grammaticality Effects

• In reading-time and event-related brain potential studies, we (and many others) find almost immediate sensitivity to grammatical contrasts (delays measured in hundreds of milliseconds)

– Constraints on movement (English, Japanese, Spanish)– Constraints on anaphora (English, Japanese, Russian)– Agreement (English, Hindi)– Case dependencies in split-ergative languages (Hindi)– Phrase structure constraints (Japanese, Basque)

• Sometimes we find that on-line measures provide clearer contrasts than acceptability ratings!

Acceptability Rating StudyII. Acceptability rating study (n = 48)

Context: A president and his secretary are discussing the current business situations of automobile companies. The president says,…

(A) Simbunkiji-niyoruto, [sokoi-no itiban yakunitatanai yakuin]-o Newspapers-by soko-gen most useless executive-acc [dono jidoosyagaisyai]-mo kubinisita toiu hookoku-ga dehajimeta-rasii. every automobile company-mo fired that report-nom appeaedr-seem ‘The newspaper says that there appears a report that to its most useless

employee, every automobile company fired.’

(B) *Simbunkiji-niyoruto, [sokoi-no itiban yakunitatanai yakuin]-ga Newspapers-by soko-gen most useless executive-acc [dono jidoosyagaisyai]-mo uttaeta toiu hookoku-ga dehajimeta-rasii. every automobile company-mo sued that report-nom appeaedr-seem ‘The newspaper says that there appears a report that its most useless employee

sued every automobile company.’

ACC-NOM order

NOM-ACC order

Aoshima, Yoshida, & Phillipsin press, Syntax

soko-no syaindono kacyoo dono kaisya

INCONGRUOUSCONGRUOUS

its employeeevery manager every company

ScrambledACC-NOM Order

CanonicalNOM-ACC Order

3. No Judgment Asymmetry

• Hoji & Ueyama claim…

– * sentences uniformly judged BAD– ok sentences mix of BAD and GOOD judgments

• Challenge A: when uniformly bad doesn’t entail ungrammatical (island constraints)

• Challenge B: when mixed good/bad judgments does not entail grammaticality (agreement)

3A. Islands

Long-distance Wh-Questions

Few people think that anybody realizes that Englishmen cook wonderful dinners

Long-distance Wh-Questions

Few people think that anybody realizes that Englishmen cook what

Long-distance Wh-Questions

What do few people think that anybody realizes that Englishmen cook gap

Island Constraints

What do Few people believe anybody who claims that Englishmen cook what

Island Constraints

What do Few people believe anybody who claims that Englishmen cook what

Relative Clause

Island Constraints

What do few people believe anybody who claims that Englishmen cook gap

Relative Clause

Island Constraints

What do few people believe anybody who claims that Englishmen cook gap

Relative Clause

Island Constraints* Who did the candidate read a book that praised ___?

[relative clause island]* Who did the candidate read The Times’ article about ___?

[complex NP island]* Who did the candidate wonder whether the press would denounce ___?

[wh-island]* Why did you remember that the senator supported the bill ___?

[factive island]* Who did the fact that the candidate supported ___ upset voters in Florida?

[subject island]* Who did the candidate raise two million dollars by talking to ___?

[adjunct island]

Standard Conclusion: wh-movement must be local

Island Judgments are Well-behaved

from Sprouse 2007, PhD UMdnow at UC Irvine Cogn. Science

Phillips 2006

Judgments are stable across methods, items, contexts, repetitions, etc.Ratings vary across island types, but they’re reliably judged BAD

* Which school did the proposal to expand __ ultimately overburden the teachers?

(Phillips, Kazanina, & Abada, 2005)

LengthMatters

A Common Inference• Grammatical generalization: wh-dependencies are local• Parsing generalization(s): local wh-dependencies are

easier/preferred• ERGO… perhaps the grammatical generalization derives from

the parsing generalization (Fodor 1978; Berwick & Weinberg 1984; Deane 1991; Pritchett 1991; Kluender & Kutas 1993; Hawkins 1999; Sag et al. 2005; Maratsos & Kowalsky 2005)– Variant I: locality constraints are nevertheless grammaticized– Variant II: locality constraints in grammar are epiphenomenal

Fodor Weinberg Berwick Kluender Hawkins Sag Maratsos

Fact: subject islands consistently judged BAD

Theory 1: subject island violations are ungrammatical(standard analysis in syntactic theory)

Theory 2: subject island effects are consequences of specific language processing mechanisms(various proposals, e.g., Deane 1991, Pritchett 1991, Hawkins 1998, Kluender 2004, etc.)

* Which school did the proposal to expand __ ultimately overburden the teachers?

ok Which school did the proposal to expand __ ultimately overburden __?

Which students …

plausibility effect at verb inside islandargues against reductionist account of subject islands

Phillips 2006, Language

3B. Agreement

Ellen LauMatt Wagers

(Wagers, Lau, & Phillips, 2007)

The musicians who the reviewer praise will likely win a Grammy.

Many speakers perceive as surprisingly GOOD

Grammatical accounts: Kimball & Aissen (1971), Kayne (1989), den Dikken (2001), Baker (2005)

Speeded acceptabilityRelative clauses: SG Subject

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

grammatical ungrammatical

proportion 'yes'

SG RC HEADPL RC HEAD

p < 0.10 ***N = 16

The musician who the reviewer praise …The musicians who the reviewer praise …

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11region

reading time (ms)

SG grammatical SG ungrammatical PL grammatical PL ungrammatical

verbsubjecthead

relative clausehead

Self-paced reading study (#2 of 6)SG The musician who the reviewer praises/praise so highly will likely …PLPL The musicians who the reviewer praises/praise so highly will likely …

The musicians who the reviewer praise will likely win a Grammy.

Many speakers perceive as surprisingly GOOD

Grammatical accounts: Kimball & Aissen (1971), Kayne (1989), den Dikken (2001), Baker (2005)

Mixed judgments entail grammaticality (Hoji & Ueyama 2007)

BUT…“This is just parsing”, “It’s important to train the informants”

Doesn’t work for agreement: informants go into ‘copy editor mode’So what can we do…?

Agreement attraction

The sheer weightSG of all these facts and figuresPL

makePL them hard for anyone to understand.

(Ronald Reagan; 13 Oct, 1982)

SGVP

MechanismsPrediction-failure cued retrieval

PL

SG

NP

PPN

P NP

weight

of the figures

SG

weight.SG figures.PL

+

VP

Vmake

PL

PL

*

Arguments against a Grammatical Account

• Document parallels with other agreement attraction effects (speeded acceptability studies, reading-time studies)

– Grammatical asymmetry (ungrammatical AGR improved, grammatical AGR not reduced)

– Singular/plural asymmetry (plurals attract, singulars do not)– Probabilistic nature of the errors

– Implicit assumption: surely The weight of the figures make … is bad

The musicians who the reviewer praise will likely win a Grammy.

Speeded acceptabilityRelative clauses: SG Subject

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

grammatical ungrammatical

proportion 'yes'

SG RC HEADPL RC HEAD

p < 0.10 ***N = 16

The musician who the reviewer praise …The musicians who the reviewer praise …

Speeded acceptabilityComplex Subjects

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

grammatical (was) ungrammatical (were)

proportion yes

SG AttractorPL Attractor

n.s. **N = 16

The weight of the figure make …The weight of the figures make …

Speeded acceptabilityRelative clauses: PL Subject

N = 16

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

grammatical ungrammatical

proportion 'yes'

SG RC HEADPL RC HEAD

The musician who the reviewers praises …The musicians who the reviewers praises …

Arguments against a Grammatical Account

• Document parallels with other agreement attraction effects (speeded acceptability studies, reading-time studies)

– Grammatical asymmetry (ungrammatical AGR improved, grammatical AGR not reduced)

– Singular/plural asymmetry (plurals attract, singulars do not)– Probabilistic nature of the errors

– Implicit assumption: surely The weight of the figures make … is bad

• Independently-motivated account based on retrieval failure avoids the need to complicate a simple grammatical generalization

The musicians who the reviewer praise will likely win a Grammy.

Summary• Agree…

– Careful data collection is a Good Thing (but the sky is not falling)– Explicit models of judgments are a Really Great Thing

• Disagree…

– Data collection methods are not our biggest challenge– It’s hard to find evidence for a ‘two-derivation’ model of judgments– We can’t make hard-and-fast rules for inferring grammaticality from

acceptability

• The broader picture …

– Let’s be serious about notions like Mental Computation