pragmatics

just some jokes

My lovely friend, Christine, said she likes to have a joke or two on-hand for the “rogue interviewer” who asks for one, or just to have something to break the ice here and there. So here are a few that make me giggle:

From Christine: What is Whitney Houston’s favorite neuro exam? Hand EYYYEEEE!

From Dominick: How do you tell the difference between and introverted scientist and an extroverted scientist? The extrovert is looking at your shoes.

From I-don’t-remember-where: A psychologist gave birth to twins, but only had one baptized. She kept the other as a control.

reading and writing

I’m looking forward to relaxing by the fire and reading papers. (Seriously. I assure you there’s no sarcasm there.) I want to finish a Sperber and Wilson’s paper on Relevance Theory first. Then I’ve got a nice stack of papers to keep me busy well into the new year!

I’m also looking forward to improving my manuscript for the negation work. I’ve got a lengthy to-do list there! As with any goal, it can be broken down into much more specific tasks:

  • Introduction (make a more concise and direct argument)
  • Analyses (use pupil dilation as a measure of cognitive load)
  • Figures (make things more legible; try more ggplot2 R code)
  • Discussion (explain importance of the findings; future directions)
  • References (double-check, alphabetize, add doi numbers)

BUCLD 2014

This year, I gave a talk on children’s comprehension of truth-functional negation at BUCLD.

The main point of my talk is that pragmatic support is important for processing the negative form, but other factors (e.g., processing demands) play a role as well. We found that 3-year-olds interpret negation incrementally with supportive discourse context. However, we found that 2-year-olds had difficulty switching flexibly between affirmative and negative statements (Study 2) and only successfully comprehended both forms in a blocked design with affirmative trials first (Study 3).

Here are slides for reference and here is the complete abstract. I’m currently working on writing this work up for publication with Roman Feiman and Jesse Snedeker, so stay tuned for the manuscript!

CUNY 2014

Here’s my poster from CUNY 2014 (Columbus, OH): CUNY 2014 Processing Negation

And the submitted abstract:

Young children’s comprehension of negation

Tracy Brookhyser, Roman Feiman, & Jesse Snedeker (Harvard University)

Negation is a crucial test case for understanding incremental semantic interpretation, because its compositional representation is inconsistent with expectations generated by lexical items (see e.g. Panizza, 2012). Early processing studies found negative sentences were initially interpreted like their affirmative counterparts, raising the possibility that early predictive processing is associative (Kaup, Lüdtke & Zwaan, 2006; Fischler, et al., 1983). However, subsequent studies with richer discourse context found adults can rapidly integrate negation into their sentence interpretation (Nieuwland & Kuperberg, 2008; Tian, Breheny & Ferguson, 2010). No such result exists with children, and recent evidence suggests children 3 and younger do not process negation incrementally (Nordmeyer & Frank, 2013). We used the visual world paradigm to examine online sentence comprehension. Children heard a story, with corresponding pictures, which established a discourse context for both the negative and affirmative sentences (e.g. DW plans to color two stars but is interrupted), then heard the critical sentence and response prompt (e.g. “DW didn’t color/colored one of the stars. Which one was it?”). We previously found adults show incremental interpretation of negation in these contexts. Adapting this method to children, we found older children (n = 16, M = 42 mos) and younger children (n = 28, M = 31 mos) performed differently (Fig 1). In our online measures, we analyzed the proportion of fixations to the affirmative target (e.g. the colored star) for the time between VP offset and NP onset. In older children, a mixed effects model found solely an effect of polarity (p = .01). In younger children, there was an interaction between vocabulary, measured by MCDI, and polarity (p = 0.01). There was a marginal effect of polarity among younger children with higher MCDI scores (p = .07). In offline measures, older children’s picture selection was above chance in affirmative (77%) and negative (86%) trials, but younger children performed at chance in affirmative (60%) and negative (52%) trials, despite good performance in unambiguous practice trials (81%). Overall, results suggest 2-year-olds have difficulty resolving competition from two similar referents, regardless of polarity, though those with higher vocabularies may do somewhat better. 3-year-olds do not appear to have particular difficulty interpreting negation. Critically, we find no evidence that initial interpretation is associative (e.g. early affirmative fixations in both conditions). In this context, negative utterances are interpreted as quickly and accurately as affirmatives, suggesting incremental compositional processes in both cases.