The Role of Representation in the Interpretation of Representational Noun Phrases

Transcription

1 The Role of Representation in the Interpretation of Representational Noun Phrases Jeffrey T. Runner University of Rochester UT Austin March 27, 2006

2 Thanks to Collaborators Micah Goldwater, University of Texas at Austin Elsi Kaiser, University of Southern California Rachel S. Sussman, University of Rochester Michael K. Tanenhaus, University of Rochester Research Assistants Karen Bobrow, Sasha Eloi, Leslianne LaVallee, Rebekka Puderpaugh, Ryan Schmitt, Travis Thompson March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 2

3 Introduction For the past seven years we have been investigating the interpretation and structure of picture noun phrases (PNPs) NPs headed by a representational noun picture, film, photograph, novel, etc. May also contain a possessor phrase and PP, both of which are optional; Harry s picture of Joe a picture of Joe, Harry s picture, etc. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 3

4 Introduction Our main focus has been on PNPs containing pronouns and reflexives (1) a picture of him/a picture of himself (2) John s picture of him/john s picture of himself In this talk I ll focus on PNPs lacking possessor phrases (as in (1)) Reflexives in PNPs have received a lot of attention in the literature Ebenezer saw a picture of himself in the paper. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 4

5 Introduction Reflexives in PNPs are able to take antecedents beyond their minimal clause John said that [ S there was [a picture of himself] in the post office] (a) John was going to get even with Mary. (b) That picture of himself in the paper would really annoy her, as would the other stunts he had planned. (Pollard & Sag, 1992) Seem to be sensitive to certain pragmatic / discourse constraints. In place of (a): (a ) Mary was quite taken aback by the publicity John was receiving. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 5

6 Two proposals for PNP reflexives Exempt anaphor/ logophor approach Binding Theory is defined to constrain reflexives with local co-arguments (Pollard & Sag, 1992; Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) Ebenezer saw himself see ARG-ST < Ebenezer i, himself i > Ebenezer saw a picture of himself picture ARG-ST < himself > Exempt anaphor is not constrained by BT Instead sensitive to pragmatic/discourse constraints March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 6

7 Two proposals for PNP reflexives PRO-in-NP approach PNP contains null possessor which binds the reflexive (Chomsky, 1986; Davies & Dubinsky, 2003) Ebenezer saw a picture of himself Ebenezer saw [PRO i picture of himself i ] PRO is a pronominal that picks up its reference from the discourse context Ebenezer i saw [PRO i picture of himself i ] Apparent sensitivity to discourse is due to PRO, not reflexive itself March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 7

8 Two proposals for PNP reflexives Both approaches attribute the behavior of PNP reflexives to a structural factor Exempt anaphor view: particular argument structure of picture noun PRO-in-NP view: null PRO possessor inside PNP Two goals To try to tease apart the predictions of these approaches and test them experimentally (next) To test another possible explanation for the behavior of PNP reflexives (see way below) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 8

9 Methodology Intuitive judgments form the foundation for collecting data for linguistic theorizing We aim to complement intuitive judgment data with experimentally collected data In some cases especially when both structural and non-structural factors (e.g., discourse, visual context) interact reliable and stable judgments can be difficult We try to manipulate structural and nonstructural factors to determine the contribution of each March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 9

10 Exempt anaphor vs. PRO-in-NP Later come back to exempt anaphor approach First present data relevant to the PRO-in- NP approach March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 10

11 Kuno s source Kaiser, Runner, Sussman & Tanenhaus (in press), building on observations of Kuno (1987) John i told Bill j about the picture of himself i/?j on the wall John i heard from Bill j about the picture of himself?i/j on the wall Kuno s observation: reflexive likes source of information Source: subject of tell, object of hear March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 11

12 Tenny s perceiver Kaiser, Runner, Sussman & Tanenhaus (in press), building on observations of Tenny (2003) John i told Bill j about the picture of him?i/j on the wall John i heard from Bill j about the picture of him i/?j on the wall Tenny s observation: pronoun likes perceiver of information Perceiver: object of tell, subject of hear March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 12

13 Source/perceiver experiments Source: subject of tell, object of hear Perceiver: object of tell, subject of hear We designed two experiments to test the Kuno/Tenny observations Experiment 1 Picture verification Experiment 2 Eye-tracking Participants seated in front of computer monitor Experiment 1: had to indicate if sentence they heard matched the scene on the screen Experiment 2: had to click on the picture mentioned in the sentence they heard March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 13

14 Experiment 1 picture verification Participants saw scenes while listening to sentences Scene contained two characters below a picture of one of the them Sentences contained names of characters and reflexive/pronoun Participants indicated whether sentence matched scene by pressing y or n on keyboard Fully counterbalanced (see Kaiser et al. (in press) for details) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 14

15 Experiment 1 picture verification Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 15

16 Experiment 1 picture verification Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 16

17 Experiment 1 picture verification Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 17

18 Experiment 1 picture verification Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 18

19 Experiment 1 picture verification Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 19

20 Experiment 1 picture verification Pron Subj Pron Obj Refl Subj Refl Obj Source Perceiver Yes response data Pronouns Preference for object (Pron Obj > Pron Subj) Significantly modulated by source/perceiver distinction Pronoun prefers perceiver to source (confirming Tenny s observation) Reflexives Strong preference for subject (Refl Subj > Refl Obj) Smaller (but significant) effect of source/perceiver distinction Small preference for source over perceiver (Kuno s observation) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 20

21 Experiment 1 picture verification Discussion Pronouns in picture NPs do show strong preference for perceiver (Tenny) Reflexives in picture NPs show a weak preference for source (Kuno) Structural preference for subject still evident for reflexives March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 21

22 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Participants saw scenes while listening to sentences Scenes contained two characters and a picture of each character Sentences contained characters names and pronoun/reflexive Participants clicked on the picture they thought the sentence described We monitored their eye movements with head-mounted eyetracker March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 22

23 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 23

24 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 24

25 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 25

26 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 26

27 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about the picture of {him/himself} on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 27

28 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Pron Subj Pron Obj Refl Subj Refl Obj Source Perceiver Target choice data (what participants clicked on) Pronouns Slight preference for object (Pron Obj > Pron Subj) Significantly modulated by source/perceiver distinction Pronoun strongly prefers perceiver to source (Tenny s observation) Reflexives Strong preference for subject (Refl Subj > Refl Obj) Numerical effect of source/perceiver distinction Tiny (n.s.) preference for source over perceiver (Kuno s observation) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 28

29 Experiment 2 eye-tracking h t h t Pronouns: Proportion of looks to subject-picture (i.e. non-bt-compatible referent) Reflexives: Proportion of looks to object-picture (i.e. non-bt-compatible referent) Eye-movement data Y-axis: proportion of looks to particular item X-axis: time in frames (30 frames/sec) Pronoun condition: Proportion of looks to subject picture (left) Reflexive condition: Proportion of looks to object picture (right) Hear : filled circles Tell : open circles March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 29

30 Experiment 2 eye-tracking h t h t Pronouns: Proportion of looks to subject-picture (i.e. non-bt-compatible referent) Reflexives: Proportion of looks to object-picture (i.e. non-bt-compatible referent) Pronoun results More looks to subject picture on hear trials =more looks to perceiver than source (Tenny) Reflexive results More looks to object picture on hear trials =more looks to source than perceiver (Kuno) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 30

31 Experiment 2 eye-tracking Discussion Target choice Pronouns in picture NPs show strong preference for perceiver (Tenny) Reflexives in picture NPs show strong preference for subject No significant effect of preference for source (Kuno) Eye movements More looks to perceiver on pronoun trials More looks to source on reflexive trials Eye movements reveal source effect for reflexives, even though target choices do not March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 31

32 Summary Both experiments Pronouns prefer perceiver object of tell, subject of hear Reflexives show some preference for source subject of tell, object of hear March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 32

33 PRO-in-NP approach To account for pronoun/reflexive preferences PRO in NP must be sensitive to source/perceiver distinction What would that mean? Since pronoun prefers perceiver and pronoun is disjoint from PRO =PRO disprefers perceiver (=prefers source) Since reflexive prefers source and reflexive is bound to PRO =PRO prefers source To illustrate: Subject as Source (underlined)/object as Perceiver Peter i told Andrew j about [PRO i picture of him j /himself i ] on the wall. Object as Source (underlined)/subject as Perceiver Peter i heard from Andrew j about [PRO j picture of him i /himself j ] on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 33

34 Overt possessor experiment To test the PRO-in-NP hypothesis we need to know how overt possessive pronouns are interpreted If they are interpreted as preferring source then this would provide striking corroboration of the PRO-in-NP hypothesis Experiment 3 Picture verification Preliminary results from 16 subjects Eye-tracking version in progress March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 34

35 Overt possessor experiment Conditions Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter told Andrew about his picture on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew about his picture on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 35

36 PRO-in-NP predictions PRO prefers source Subject as Source/Object as Perceiver Peter i told Andrew about his i picture on the wall. Object as Source/Subject as Perceiver Peter heard from Andrew i about his i picture on the wall. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 36

37 Results yes responses subject object told heard told : no preference for source (subject) heard : preference for perceiver (subject) Reverse of what PRO-in-NP predicts, if PRO and his are similar. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 37

38 Overt possessor experiment Discussion Overt possessor shows no preference for source or perceiver with tell Overt possessor shows preference for perceiver with hear PRO-in-NP approach predicts possessor should prefer source For PRO-in-NP approach to be maintained, an explanation for the differences in interpretation assigned PRO vs. overt his needs to be worked out. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 38

39 Exempt anaphor approach Exempt anaphor/ logophor approach Binding Theory is defined to constrain reflexives with local co-arguments (Pollard & Sag, 1992; Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) Ebenezer saw himself see ARG-ST < Ebenezer i, himself i > Ebenezer saw a picture of himself picture ARG-ST < himself > Exempt anaphor is not constrained by Binding Theory Instead sensitive to pragmatic/discourse constraints (including preference for source) Exempt anaphor approach blames noun argument structure for exempt anaphor behavior March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 39

40 Exempt anaphor approach Exempt anaphor approach treats picture NP reflexives as free from Binding Theory and constrained to pick up reference from the discourse like pronouns PNP reflexives are like pronouns Can be interpreted coreferentially or as bound variables True reflexives are always bound variables March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 40

41 Ellipsis in PNPs Ellipsis has been used to reveal differences between bound variable and coreferential interpretations. true reflexive: John hates himself, and so does Fred. Elided VP is interpreted as Fred hates himself (bound variable), Not Fred hates John (coreferential) Elided reflexive interpreted as a bound variable only. PNP reflexive: John has a picture of himself, and so does Fred. Elided VP is interpreted as Fred has a picture of himself (bound variable) or Fred has a picture of John (coreferential). March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 41

42 Statue interpretations Jackendoff (1992) Transfer of reference to representation Can refer to statue of Ringo Starr as Ringo Starr True referent can bind statue reflexive Ringo Starr saw himself at the museum. Statue referent cannot bind true reflexive Ringo Starr fell on himself. (not: The statue of RS fell onto the true RS.) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 42

43 Statue interpretations Lidz (2001) Statue reflexives ( near reflexives ) can receive coreferential interpretations Ringo saw himself at the museum. Ringo saw himself at the museum and Paul did, too. Ringo saw the statue of Ringo and Paul saw the statue of Ringo too. Note: coreferential readings not usually possible with OBJ NPs. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 43

44 Statue reflexive morphemes Lidz (2001), Reuland (2001) Languages sometimes have special reflexive morphemes that distinguish between true reflexives and reflexives that can receive statue interpretations March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 44

45 Statue reflexives and PNP reflexives Statue reflexives Can receive coreferential interpretations Are phrases that refer to representations of their antecedents. Have OBJ form (=are true direct objects) PNP reflexives Can receive coreferential interpretations Are phrases that refer to representations of their antecedents. Have PNP form (=are in picture NPs) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 45

46 Unified approach? Question Could statue reflexives and PNP reflexives be the same thing? Could the fact that they both refer to representations of their antecedents be the reason that they both receive coreferential interpretations? Implications If so, this would have enormous implications for the treatment of PNP reflexives: Their behavior would not depend on the structure of the PNP itself either the argument structure or the null PRO possessor March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 46

47 PNP vs OBJ experiment Goldwater & Runner (2006) tested the claim that OBJ reflexives must be bound variables and that PNP reflexives can be both bound variables and coreferential anaphora Using ellipsis OBJ condition (with OBJ scene) Mike is pointing at himself. PNP condition (with PNP scene) Mike is pointing at a picture of himself. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 47

48 PNP vs OBJ experiment 23 participants (University of Rochester undergraduates) Seated in front of a computer monitor Listened to prerecorded sentences Verified if displayed scene matched the sentences heard by pushing a yes or no button Three verbs used: point, tap, touch Fillers, counterbalancing, etc March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 48

49 Ellipsis OBJ condition Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 49

50 Ellipsis OBJ condition Bound Variable Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 50

51 Ellipsis OBJ condition Bound Variable Coreferential Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 51

52 Ellipsis OBJ condition Bound Variable Coreferential Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. Predictions If OBJ reflexive must be bound variable, participants should reject coreferential interpretation required by Coreferential scene Bound variable scene: mostly yes responses Coreferential scene: mostly no responses March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 52

53 Ellipsis PNP condition Jose is pointing at a picture of himself, and Mike is too March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 53

54 Ellipsis PNP condition Bound Variable Jose is pointing at a picture of himself, and Mike is too March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 54

55 Ellipsis PNP condition Bound Variable Coreferential Jose is pointing at a picture of himself, and Mike is too March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 55

56 Ellipsis PNP condition Bound Variable Coreferential Jose is pointing at a picture of himself, and Mike is too Predictions If PNP reflexive can receive coreferential interpretation, participants should accept coreferential interpretation with Coreferential scene Bound variable scene: mostly yes responses Coreferential scene: (at least) some yes responses March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 56

57 Summary of predictions OBJ condition (OBJ scene) Bound variable: mostly yes Coreferential: mostly no PNP condition (PNP scene) Bound variable: mostly yes Coreferential: some yes Results presented as proportion of coreferential interpretations yes to Coreferential scene no to Bound Variable scene March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 57

58 Ellipsis results: proportion of coreferential interpretations * p<.01 n.s PNP OBJ Coref BV March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 58

59 Ellipsis results: proportion of coreferential interpretations * p<.01 n.s PNP OBJ Coref BV PNP can receive coreferential interpretation OBJ receives bound variable interpretation March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 59

60 Summary Ellipsis Object reflexives receive bound variable interpretation PNP reflexives receive both bound variable and coreferential interpretations March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 60

61 Reference Transfer vs OBJ experiment In the previous experiment the linguistic and visual stimuli were correlated. OBJ scene went with OBJ sentence PNP scene went with PNP sentence We wanted to tease apart the effects of the linguistic and visual stimuli Same scenes (OBJ and PNP) Only OBJ sentences OBJ scene with OBJ sentence =OBJ condition PNP scene with OBJ sentence =Reference Transfer condition March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 61

62 Reference Transfer vs OBJ experiment Again, using ellipsis OBJ condition (with OBJ scene) Mike is pointing at himself. Reference Transfer (RT) condition (with PNP scene) Mike is pointing at himself. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 62

63 Reference Transfer vs OBJ experiment 37 participants (University of Rochester undergraduates) Seated in front of a computer monitor Listened to prerecorded sentences Verified if displayed scene matched the sentences heard by pushing a yes or no button Three verbs used: point, tap, touch Fillers, counterbalancing, etc March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 63

64 Predictions Exempt anaphor approach Coreferential interpretations available because of exempt anaphor due to noun argument structure Without PNP structure, few coreferential interpretations predicted Reference transfer Coreferential interpretations due to reference transfer Coreferential interpretations predicted even without PNP structure March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 64

65 Ellipsis OBJ condition Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 65

66 Ellipsis OBJ condition Bound Variable Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 66

67 Ellipsis OBJ condition Bound Variable Coreferential Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 67

68 Ellipsis OBJ condition Bound Variable Coreferential Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too. Predictions If OBJ reflexive must be bound variable, participants should reject coreferential interpretation required by Coreferential scene Bound variable scene: mostly yes responses Coreferential scene: mostly no responses March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 68

69 Ellipsis RT condition Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 69

70 Ellipsis RT condition Bound Variable Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 70

71 Ellipsis RT condition Bound Variable Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too Coreferential March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 71

72 Ellipsis RT condition Bound Variable Coreferential Jose is pointing at himself, and Mike is too Predictions (of Reference Transfer approach) If RT reflexive can receive coreferential interpretation, participants should accept coreferential interpretation with Coreferential scene Bound variable scene: mostly yes responses Coreferential scene: (at least) some yes responses March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 72

73 Summary of Reference Transfer predictions OBJ condition Bound variable: mostly yes Coreferential: mostly no RT condition Bound variable: mostly yes Coreferential: some yes March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 73

74 Ellipsis results: proportion of coreferential interpretations p< RT OBJ Coref BV March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 74

75 Ellipsis results: proportion of coreferential interpretations p< RT OBJ Coref BV Overall, RT reflexive received more coreferential interpretations, regardless of scene March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 75

76 Experiments compared -- ellipsis PNP RT Coref Proportion of coreferential interpretations for picture scenes does not differ for PNP and RT experiments BV March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 76

77 Summary PNP vs. OBJ (structure + scene vary) PNP reflexives can receive coreferential interpretations RT vs. OBJ (scene alone varies) RT reflexives can receive coreferential interpretation March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 77

78 Discussion There is a difference between PNP and OBJ reflexives when structure correlated with scene (e.g., PNP structure and PNP scene) But, there is still a difference between the interpretation of reflexives depending on scene. Independent of structure of NP With reference transfer use more likely to get coreferential interpretation Provides preliminary evidence that structure alone is not causing special behavior of PNP reflexives. Reflexives referring to pictures are special even when not supported by PNP structure Undermines exempt anaphor approach March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 78

79 Future directions Currently setting up eye-tracking version of PNP vs. OBJ and RT vs. OBJ experiments (Goldwater & Runner) Currently running eye-tracking version of prenominal possessor experiment (Kaiser, Runner, Sussman & Tanenhaus) Experiments in planning stages to test multiple reflexives and pronouns in other languages, which have multiple reflexives (Runner & Kaiser--Dutch, Swedish, Finnish) March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 79

80 Take home message Some of the data needed to evaluate our syntactic theories is hard to get reliably Experimental approaches can help by systematically manipulating both structural and non-structural factors Data from different sources should complement each other, ultimately providing fuller picture of what s going on March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 80

81 Selected References Goldwater, M. & Runner, J.T. (in press). Coreferential interpretations of reflexives in picture noun phrases: an experimental approach. In P. Denis, E. McCready, A. Palmer & B. Reese (Eds.) Proceedings of the Texas Linguistics Society 8. Austin, TX: University of Texas. Grodzinsky, Y. & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S. and Tanenhaus, M.K. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 81.1, B1-B13. Runner, J.T., R.S. Sussman, & M.K. Tanenhaus. To appear. Processing Reflexives and Pronouns in Picture Noun Phrases, Cognitive Science. March 27, 2006 Jeffrey T. Runner 81