Search

The current project aims to investigate how the at-issue status of clauses impacts the processing of these clauses, as well as subsequent discourse. To test this, we designed two experiments, each investigating this for a different type of main clause-subordinate clause construction: Experiment 1 Sentences containing an adverbial clause that starts with 'after' Experiment 2 Relative clause constructions: subject- and object-modifying Experiment 1 is a self-paced reading experiment which will be conducted on sentences containing adverbial clauses. In these sentences, the adverbial clause is not expected to be at-issue, and the main clause is. We will also test how content that follows these sentences is processed differently based on whether it is coreferential with the at-issue content (main clause) or the not-at-issue content (adverbial clause). For example, the reading times of below bracketed clauses will be compared: (1a) [subordinate clause, low at-issue potential] After [they had dinner at a French bistro,] they went to a violin concert. (1b) [main clause, high at-issue potential] After they went to a violin concert, [they had dinner at French bistro.] In the sentence that follows these, the bracketed clause content will be coreferential with either the subordinate clause content (1a), or the main clause content (1b): (2) It was [a very small cozy restaurant.] In experiment 2, we want to find out how clauses that are ambiguous with respect to their at-issue status, object-modifying relative clauses, are processed differently compared to clauses that have a clear at-issue status, subject-modifying relative clauses (not-at-issue) and the main clauses that embed these (at-issue). Furthermore, we aim to investigate how content that follows above-mentioned relative clause constructions is processed differently based on whether its content is coreferential with at-issue content, not-at-issue content, or content that is ambiguous with respect to its at-issue status. For example, the reading times of below bracketed clauses will be compared: (3a) [subject-modifying relative clause, low at-issue potential] My dad, who [was having a snack of chips and dip,] opened a bottle of wine for my uncle. (3b) [object-modifying relative clause, medium at-issue potential] My dad opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, who [was having a snack of chips and dip.] (3c) [main clause that embeds a subject-modifying relative clause, high at-issue potential] My dad, who opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, [was having a snack of chips and dip.] In the sentence that follows these, the bracketed clause content will be coreferential with either the subject-modifying relative clause content (3a), the object-modifying relative clause content (3b), or the main clause content (3c): It was [tortilla chips with guacemole.]

This fourth registration aims to fill in gaps that were identified after carrying out experiments affiliated with the third registration part of this project: 'Processing at-issue content part 3: disentangling recency from clause type (again)'. I will first review the findings of two experiments of the third registration (experiment 5 & 6) in order to set up the goals of the current registration. These self-paced reading experiments - experiment 5 with sentences containing an adverbial clause that starts with 'after', and experiment 6 with subject- and object-modifying relative clause constructions - were designed to investigate which factor had a greater impact on the at-issue status of the individual clauses of above-mentioned sentence types: clause type, or recency. This was tested by measuring how fast a {continuation sentence} was processed that had content that was coreferential with content present in only one of the clauses in the sentence it followed. In experiment 5 this was done by comparing the reading times of {continuation sentences} in two conditions: one in which the {continuation} had content that was coreferential with content that was coreferential with content in a sentence-final adverbial clause (1a), and one in which the {continuation} had content that was coreferential with content in a sentence-early matrix clause (1b): Experiment 5 - adverbial clauses: (1a) They went to a violin concert after they had dinner at a French bistro. It was {a very small cosy restaurant.} (1b) They had dinner at a French bistro after they went to a violin concert. It was {a very small cosy restaurant.} In experiment 6 this was done by comparing the reading times of {continuation sentences} in three conditions: one in which the {continuation} had content that was coreferential with content in a sentence-early matrix clause (2a), one in which the {continuation} had content that was coreferential with content in a sentence early relative clause (2b), and one in which the {continuation} had content that was coreferential with content in a sentence-final matrix clause (2c): Experiment 6 - relative clauses: (2a) My dad opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, who was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (2b) My dad, who opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (2c) My dad, who was having a snack of chips and dip, opened a bottle of wine for my uncle. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} Experiment 5 yielded no significant differences in reading times for the continuations, leaving the question as to which factor - recency or clause type - is more important in assigning at-issue status to clauses, open. In experiment 6 we found that the continuation in (2c) was read faster than in (2b), but no differences were found between (2a) and any of the other conditions. This also means we cannot draw any conclusions about which factor - recency or clause type - is more important in assigning at-issue status to clauses, because in the fastest condition (2c), the {continuation} connected with a clause that was both a main clause and recent; both of these contribute to making said clause more at-issue. In fact, so far across all studies we have conducted, all instances where we found a continuation to be read significantly faster were when it was coreferential with a clause that was a recent matrix clause, or a recent relative clause (object-modifying). The current follow-up studies aim to investigate if clause type contributes to the at-issue status of clauses when these clauses are not recent. I.e., we will hold constant position (sentence-early), to try and isolate an effect of clause type. Theories predict that matrix clauses can always be at-issue, also when they are sentence-early. Our experiments so far have not been able to evidence this. Therefore, we have designed two follow-up experiments in which the at-issue status of a sentence-early matrix clause is compared to the at-issue status of other clauses in this same position that theories predict are not likely to be at-issue. In experiment 7 this will be done by comparing the reading times of {continuations} when their content is coreferential either with content in a sentence-early matrix clause (3b) or a sentence-early adverbial clause (3a): Experiment 7 - adverbial clauses: (3a) After they had dinner at a French bistro, they went to a violin concert. It was {a very small cosy restaurant.} (3b) They had dinner at a French bistro after they went to a violin concert. It was {a very small cosy restaurant.} In experiment 8 this will be done by comparing the reading times of {continuations} when their content is coreferential either with content in a sentence-early matrix clause (4b) or a main clause that is followed by another main clause (i.e.: two free-standing units/sentences). The point is to compare the same content when the intervening material is either a subordinate clause, leaving the matrix clause accessible, or a free-standing sentence, making the main clause before that harder to access. The goal for the condition with two main clauses, was to have them both answer the same Question Under Discussion of 'what was happening?', which is compatible with a coordinating relation. This makes this first main clause less accessible (not-at-issue): Experiment 8 - relative clauses: (4a) My mom opened a bottle of wine for my uncle. He was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (4b) My mom opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, who was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} For experiment 8, the items underwent some additional changes. In the condition where there are two main clauses (4a), the wh-pronoun is replaced by a personal pronoun. To make sure that this pronoun can only refer to one of the participants in the preceding main clause, we made sure that all items contained at least one participant with an explicitly clear gender, so that the pronoun always only had one possible referent. This was done to avoid any slowed-down reading times possibly arising because of issues with ambiguous pronoun resolution.

Our previously registered first part of this project aimed to investigate how the at-issue status of clauses impacts the processing of these clauses, as well as subsequent discourse. This was tested with two experiments: Experiment 1: sentences containing an adverbial clause that starts with 'after' Experiment 2: relative clause constructions; subject- and object-modifying In experiment 1 we found that discourse segments following a sentence containing an adverbial clause (continuations) were read faster when their content was coreferential with an element that was only present in the main clause (1a), and read slower when it was coreferential with an element that was only present in the adverbial clause (1b). The bracketed content { } represents the continuation in all examples below. {continuation} (1a) After they went to a violin concert, they had dinner at a French bistro. It is {a very small cozy restaurant.} (1b) After they had dinner at a French bistro, they went to a violin concert. It is {a very small cozy restaurant.} In experiment 2 we found that continuations were read faster when their content was coreferential with an element that was only present in the main clause (2a) or sentence-final relative clause (2b), than when it was coreferential with an element that was only present in the sentence-early relative (2c). {continuation} (2a) My dad, who opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {tortilla chips with guacamole.} (2a) My dad opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, who was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {tortilla chips with guacamole.} (2c) My dad, who was having a snack of chips and dip, opened a bottle of wine for my uncle. It was {tortilla chips with guacamole.} While these results were expected, our previous design makes it impossible to disentangle the effect of recency from the effect of clause type, both of which could have an impact on the at-issue potential of discourse segments. For all conditions in which the continuation was read faster, it was coreferential with an element that was only present in the clause it immediately followed, and no difference was found when this clause was a main clause or an object-modifying relative clause. The current follow-up study will make it possible to disentangle clause type from clause position (recency) by presenting the participants with similar items, in which the continuation is (also) coreferential an element that was only present in a sentence-early main clauses (3a & 4a). Comparing the reading times for these to the reading times of continuations that are coreferential with an element only present in a sentence-final adverbial clauses (3b), as well as sentence-early relative clauses (4b) and sentence-final main clauses (4c), will help us understand better how both clause type and clause position (recency) impact the at-issue status of discourse segments. Experiment 3: {continuation} (3a) They went to a violin concert after they had dinner at a French bistro. It is {a very small cozy restaurant.} (3b) They had dinner at a French bistro after they went to a violin concert. It is {a very small cozy restaurant.} Experiment 4: {continuation} (4a) My dad opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, who was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (4b) My dad, who opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (4c) My dad, who was having a snack of chips and dip, opened a bottle of wine for my uncle. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.}

This third registration aims to address potential confounds that were identified after carrying out experiments affiliated with the second registration part of this project: 'Processing at-issue content part 2: disentangling recency from clause type'. These self-paced reading experiments - experiment 3 with sentences containing an adverbial clause that starts with 'after', and experiment 4 with subject- and object-modifying relative clause constructions - were designed to investigate which factor had a greater impact on the at-issue status of the individual clauses of above-mentioned sentence types: clause type, or recency. This was tested by measuring how fast a {continuation sentence} was processed that had content that was coreferential with only one of the clauses in the sentence it followed. In experiment 3 this was done by comparing the reading times of {continuation sentences} with content that was coreferential with content in either a sentence-final adverbial clause (1a), or a sentence-early matrix clause (1b): Experiment 3 - adverbial clauses: (1a) They went to a violin concert after they had dinner at a French bistro. It was {a very small cosy restaurant.} (1b) They had dinner at a French bistro after they went to a violin concert. It was {a very small cosy restaurant.} In experiment 4 this was done by comparing the reading times of {continuation sentences} with content that was coreferential with content in a sentence-early matrix clause (2a), a sentence early relative clause (2b), or a sentence-final matrix clause (2c): Experiment 4 - relative clauses (2a) My dad opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, who was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (2b) My dad, who opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (2c) My dad, who was having a snack of chips and dip, opened a bottle of wine for my uncle. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} Neither experiments yielded any significant differences in reading times for the continuations, leaving the question as to which factor - recency or clause type - is more important in assigning at-issue status to clauses, open. While it is clear from the first study (see previous registrations for this project) that recency is an important factor, it is not yet clear whether clause type is as well. The current follow-up study will address this question once more, by carrying out follow-up studies for both experiments which will address potential confounds in experiments 3 and 4. There are three potential reasons we identified for our null results: 1. In experiments 3 & 4, the 'it is/was' pre-region was presented immediately before the {continuation}, at the line below the sentence with which 'it is/was' establishes coreference once the {continuation} is read. This was changed from experiments 1 & 2, where the 'it is/was' pre-region was presented immediately after the coreference sentence, after which the {continuation} was presented on the next line. While there is no immediate reason to believe that the position of this pre-target region with respect to on which line it is presented should have such an effect, it is the only notable difference between experiment 4 and its predecessor (experiment 2). Conditions (2b) and (2c) were both present in experiment 2, and significant differences were found between these two conditions then. Since this result was missing from experiment 4 where the pre-target region was on a different line, we want to make sure that this was not the reason for the absence of an effect. If we replicate experiment 4 and find no effect again, it might mean that the significant differences we found in experiment 2 were spurious differences. If clause type and/or recency are important factors influencing reading times of the {continuation}, experiment 6 (our replication of experiment 4, in line with the positioning of the pre-target region of experiment 2), should show that the continuation is read faster in (3c) than in (3b). Experiment 6 - relative clauses (3a) My dad opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, who was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (3b) My dad, who opened a bottle of wine for my uncle, was having a snack of chips and dip. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} (3c) My dad, who was having a snack of chips and dip, opened a bottle of wine for my uncle. It was {a dry white wine from Italy.} 2. In experiment 3, the sentence containing the adverbial clause was presented as a single [chunk] (4) rather than being broken up in three [chunks] (5) as was done in experiment 1(6): (4) [They went to a violin concert after they had dinner at a French bistro.] (5) [They went to a violin concert] [after] [they had dinner at a French bistro.] (6) [After] [they went to a violin concert,] [they had dinner at a French bistro.] This was done to avoid a reading where the subordinating adverbial clause was actually read as coordinating (7): (7) They went to a violin concert, after, they had dinner at a French bistro. While a single [chunk] might have facilitated the subordinating reading, it could be facilitated even more so by presenting the sentence in two individual [chunks]: one containing the matrix clause, and one containing the adverbial clause (8): (8) [They went to a violin concert] [after they had dinner at a French bistro.] By chunking the regions like this, we also avoid having one [chunk] that is much larger than all of the surrounding [chunks], making the experiment more cohesive throughout with no [chunks] that stand out to participants for their size. This leads to below conditions for experiment 5: Experiment 5 - adverbial clauses: (9a) [They went to a violin concert] [after they had dinner at a French bistro.] [It was] {a very small cosy restaurant.} (9b) [They had dinner at a French bistro] [after they went to a violin concert.] [It was] {a very small cosy restaurant.} Both of these changes mean that experiments 5 & 6 will be closer to the original design of experiments 1 & 2, where our findings were in line with our expectations and predictions. That said, if we replicate our null results, this could mean that the significant differences we previously found in experiments 1 & 2, were spurious differences. 3. Lastly, in experiment 3, the null-effect can be explained by the conditions themselves. The conditions were balanced so that in both of them the {continuation} attaches to a clause that has a characteristic that makes it likely to be at-issue, and one that makes it less likely to be at issue. In (1a), the {continuation} attaches to a sentence-late clause, but it is a subordinate clause. In (1b) the {continuation} attaches to a main clause, but it is sentence-early. If this is the (main) reason for our null-effect, we don't expect to find anything different for experiment 5 compared to experiment 3. However, we want to make sure that any other potential confounds are addressed before concluding this.