Vocabulary knowledge predicts individual differences in the integration of visual and linguistic constraints

ABSTRACT

Two experiments investigated individual differences in the integration of visual and linguistic constraints during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Skilled adult comprehenders heard sentences like “Put the kiwi on the rectangle on the circle”, in which “on the rectangle … ” could temporarily reflect either the destination of “put” or a modifier of “kiwi”, while viewing visual arrays with either 1 kiwi (e.g. on a rectangle) or 2 kiwis (e.g. on a rectangle vs. triangle). While the noun “kiwi” provided sufficient information to distinguish the object of interest in the 1 referent context, modification was necessitated by the 2 referent context. Garden path eye (Experiment 1) and mouse (Experiment 2) movements to the incorrect (e.g. rectangle) destination were reduced in 2 vs 1 referent contexts, conceptually replicating prior findings, and these effects were weaker for participants with less vs. more vocabulary knowledge. Implications for models of sentence processing are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• individual differences
• language experience
• syntactic ambiguity resolution
• visual world paradigm
• vocabulary knowledge

Acknowledgments

Radhika Chauhan and Lacey Carter are thanked for their assistance with data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Declaration of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Notes

1 Horizontal mouse movements (i.e., x coordinates) were also analysed. Horizontal mouse movements during the analysis window were significantly higher (i.e., reflecting less leftward movement to the target) in the 2 vs. 1 referent context, Est. = 5.62, SE = 2.66, t = 2.12, p < .05. In addition, the interaction of referent context and instruction type was significant, Est. = -10.73, SE = 5.31, t = -2.02, p < .05, revealing that the effect of referent context was more pronounced for ambiguous vs. unambiguous instructions. However, no other (e.g., individual differences) effects were significant.