She, on the other hand: Sinistrality, handedness, and

pronoun resolution – proposal for an eye-tracking study Rachel Gargiulo

1. Introduction

To date, sinistrality, familial sinistrality, and degree of handedness have been a massive gap for the

linguistics research community. Few studies have undertaken to account for any variation

potentially influenced by these factors; many exclude left-handers entirely in order to homogenize

their participants and reduce noise in their experimental data. Even among right-handed people,

though, there appear to be individual differences that arise in language processing, related to

familial sinistrality and degree of handedness. While it’s useful and necessary, for many reasons, to

reduce noise in data, there comes a time to dive into that noise and begin to understand where and

how it originates. In a recent paper by Willems, Van der Haegen, Fisher, & Francks (2014), the

authors called upon cognitive neuroscience and neurogenetics researchers “to recognize the

potential of studying this often-discarded group of research subjects” (p. 1).

The linguistics community ought to heed this call as well, as there is still much to be learned about

neural organization and brain lateralization, and what effects they could potentially have on

language comprehension and production processes. Section two will review what linguistically-

relevant observations are currently available in the literature, addressing the effects of familial

sinistrality and degree of handedness, as well as possible parallels between some of these effects

and dual processing models of language comprehension (e.g., Kuperberg 2007). This section will

also explore ambiguous pronoun resolution as a means of looking at the relationship between

familial sinistrality, degree of handedness, and language processing. Section three provides an

experiment for the purpose of examining the validity of these parallels, and section four discusses

possible experimental outcomes and how they will improve on current knowledge.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Handedness

2.1.1 Sinistrality & familial sinistrality

Sinistrality, or left-handedness, occurs in roughly 10% of the population, with some slight cultural

variance. Familial sinistrality (FS+), or a right-handed person having at least one left-handed close

relative, occurs in approximately 40-45% of the human population (Hancock & Bever 2013). Those

in the remaining portion of the population are right-handed with no close relatives who are left-

handed (FS-). This leaves us with two equally-large normal populations between whom evidence

suggests differences which affect language processing strategies. Before 1987, there had been

studies suggesting differences in linguistic performance between groups of subjects with and

without left-handed family members in experiments using very simple stimuli, such as syllables or

single words (see Cowart 1989 for discussion). According to Cowart (p. 94), the first study to

suggest an effect on linguistic processing was conducted by Bever, Carrithers, & Townsend (1987).

In this study, subjects read sentence fragments in which a particle could appear in one of two

positions, as in (1).

(1) John called (up) every one of his friends (up) yesterday…

Shortly after the fragment, the subject would hear a probe word (the particle), and would have to

give a rapid response as to whether or not it had occurred in the fragment. While FS- subjects

showed a distinct linear effect (i.e., their RTs were dependent on whether the probed item had

appeared early or late in the fragment), the FS+ group1 showed no linear effect at all, suggesting

they relied on a representation of the fragment that was not dependent on linear order. A graph of

their findings is reproduced from Cowart (1989) in Fig. 1. Since then, a number of studies have

produced similar results.

Fig. 1 Mean response times to probes from early and late parts of

sentence fragments, by subject type.

Townsend, Carrithers, & Bever (2001) have interpreted their findings from the 1987 and several

follow-up studies as supporting what they call an analysis-by-synthesis model of language

comprehension, consisting of “an initial meaning/form hypothesis based on habits and a later

compositional meaning based on the application of grammatical rules” (p. 312) (for an overview of

the model and its origins, see Bever & Poeppel 2010). They take the behavioral difference between

the two groups to represent differences in the type of linguistic item, or aspect of the linguistic

representation, that is more strongly attended-to. “…FS- adults, show greater sensitivity to

1 The criteria Bever et al used for identifying FS+/- subjects in this study was whether they had left-handed family members among their grandparents, parents, aunts & uncles, and siblings. Some researchers are more restrictive, requiring the left-handed person to be a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, or child), or requiring that 30% of a subjects relatives be left-handed.

sequential properties of the linguistic stimulus. Those who show relatively less lateralization of

linguistic functions in the left hemisphere, namely, FS+ adults, show greater sensitivity to lexical-

associative properties…” (Townsend et al. 2001, p. 327). This argument does not include any sense

of a ‘deficit’ in either group. They comprehend language equally well, though perhaps with different

preferences for method of processing.2

Mounting evidence of processing differences similar to that of the word-probe task discussed above

includes:

- FS- people tend to read sentences faster in a clause-by-clause reading paradigm as

opposed to word-by-word. The opposite is true for FS+. FS- people tend to display better

comprehension of auditorily-presented text when it is presented monaurally. FS+ display

better comprehension when the words are presented by alternating between both ears

(Bever et al. 1987; Bever 1988).

- In addition to the simple linear effects in probe recognition described earlier, FS- also

show sensitivity to syntactic structure (main vs. subordinate clause) in similar probe-

recognition tasks, as compared to FS+ (Townsend et al. 2001).

- Townsend et al. (2001) also found evidence that FS+ individuals rely more on a semantic

strategy during sentence comprehension while FS- rely more on a syntactic strategy.

- Suggestive evidence from an fMRI study by Chan (2007) that lexical tasks activate both

hemispheres in FS+ people, but only the left hemisphere in FS-.

This evidence culminated in a prediction by Hancock & Bever (2013); namely, that syntactic

processing occurs in the left hemisphere for (at least) all right-handed people, but that lexical

processing is more left-lateralized for FS- than it is for FS+. In other words, FS+ people use the right

hemisphere more in lexical processing, though not in syntactic processing. Linguistic information is

probably coded in the same way in both groups, but attended-to differently, so that FS+ individuals

access words and meanings more readily while FS- individuals access syntactic structure more

readily. This specific prediction is as yet untested, at least as far as what can be seen in currently-

available literature.

2.1.2 Degree of handedness

Degree of handedness is essentially another way to try to capture the same variance as familial

sinistrality. The two measures typically overlap, yielding similar results for right-handed people

who are FS+ and who have a lower degree of handedness (DH), while FS- show results that align

with right-handers who have a high DH. However, it’s also conceivable for someone to be FS+, but

show a very strong preference toward use of the right hand in daily tasks, and it’s unclear at this

time how to predict their behavior during language processing as this is nowhere discussed in the

literature. It would be useful to look at both measures, as there may be an interaction or additive

effect between FS and DH.

2 It should be noted, however, that it’s well-attested that FS+ suffer fewer language impairments due to brain damage, and have a tendency to recover from them more quickly. This may be related to effects of lateralization on language-oriented neural substrates. See Hancock & Bever (2013, p. 81), and references therein.

An interesting finding by Newman, Malaia & Seo (2014), who used fMRI to look at regions of the

brain activated during sentence comprehension, showed that the correlations between DH and

region of activation diminish with increasing syntactic complexity, suggesting that higher levels of

reliance on semantic/lexical processes in FS+ and people with low degree of handedness is a

preference, and does not indicate a syntactic deficiency, as it can be modulated by the task at hand

and/or context.

2.2 Dual-stream processing models

There are several processing models of language comprehension and a number of them include

some kind of multiple parallel stream approach, such as Jackendoff’s (2007) Parallel Architecture

model and Kuperberg’s (2007) dual-stream processing model. They show a high degree of

similarity in many respects, but with a number of finer points under disagreement. We will abstract

away from the finer points here, and pursue a more coarse-grained review by focusing in on

Kuperberg’s model, which is sufficient for our purposes. Kuperburg (2007) discusses the traditional

wisdom, which describes semantic processes and syntactic processes as clearly distinguishable,

with most EEG studies showing semantic effects at N400 and syntactic effects at P600, and suggests

that this understanding of the time-course of language processes is clearly insufficient, since we

also find what appear to be semantic effects in what we understand as the syntactic time-window.

Kuperberg suggests (at least) two separate combinatorial streams – one morphosyntactic, and the

other “…semantic combination in the absence of morphosyntax…distinct from processing based

purely on what is stored within semantic memory” (p. 40) – and this hypothesis might explain the

occasional overlap of P600 and N400 effects.

Therefore, a question that this model may help to investigate is that of the differences that we see in

processing strategies and preferences between FS+ and FS- people, because it gives us a theoretical

framework in which to investigate and with which to work toward an explanation of these apparent

distinctions. Support for this idea comes from a study by Kos, Van den Brink, and Hagoort (2012).

They found interesting (and currently unexplained) individual variation in the late positive

complex (LPC) during a task exploring semantic anomaly. They found that half of their participants,

all of whom were right-handed, showed an N400 response, while the other half showed an LPC.

Accounting for working memory differences did not explain the effect. They collected information

about the handedness of the parents of 70 out of the 72 participants whose data were used in

analysis, 14 of whom had reported having at least one left-handed parent. Of these 14, only three

belonged to the group that showed an LPC response. These numbers are not very meaningful,

however, since handedness of parents alone is not a typical measure of familial sinistrality. A more

accurate picture may have emerged with handedness information about more family members, and

with degree of handedness data, which was not collected.

2.3 Ambiguous pronoun resolution

The resolution of ambiguous pronouns has not been used to explore potentially different

processing preferences in comprehenders based on FS or DH, but available literature suggests it

could be used effectively for this purpose. Pronouns require the reader/listener to find an

appropriate antecedent in the discourse in order to be interpreted. Heim’s (1982) thoughts bear a

striking resemblance to Kuperberg’s (2007) in one respect that is very important to our purposes

here – dual routes for processing. They use different terminology, but the two views line up in the

following way. Kuperberg (2007) describes the two processing streams as being morphosyntax-

dependent (combinatorial) and semantic-based, independent of morphosyntactic processing. This

aligns with Heim’s (1982) “anaphoric pronouns as bound variables” (p. 14) which has a distinctly

syntactic flavor, and “anaphoric pronouns as picking up a speaker’s reference”, which has a

distinctly semantic flavor. As discussed in Koornneef et al. (2012), these two methods of finding an

appropriate antecedent will often end in the same result, but not always. In the case of a fully

ambiguous pronoun embedded in an elided VP structure, the outcome of the two streams may be

different. If the reader/listener were to choose an antecedent based on a preference for

semantic/discourse-based processing in (2a), they would arrive at (2b), whereas a syntactic

resolution tactic would result in the interpretation in (2c), given a preceding context that allows for

complete ambiguity.

(2) (a) Poohi thought hei should explore outside of the Hundred-Acre Wood, and Piglet j did

(…i/j) too.

(b) Piglet also thought Pooh should explore outside of the Hundred-Acre Wood.

(c) Piglet also thought he, himself should explore outside of the Hundred-Acre Wood.

In (2c), the syntactic structure of the first clause is copied into the second, and the pronoun is

bound by the clause-internal antecedent, and in (2b), the antecedent is taken from the preceding

clause.

Looking at past studies, both offline and online, some interesting data emerges. A number of offline

studies have been done with different kinds of participants, including agrammatic aphasics,

children and unimpaired adults (Vasić 2006; Vasić et al. 2006; Vasić, Avrutin & Ruigendijk 2006;

Shapiro, Hestvik, Lesan & Garcia 2003; among others). Together, these studies have shown an

advantage, or preference, for the syntactic stream; i.e., the bound-variable interpretation. This

preference was weakest in unimpaired adults. This lends some support to an account of FS and/or

DH effects in preference once we take into consideration the fact that these studies tend to exclude

left-handed participants and fail to account for FS or DH. There is also a confound in the case of

children and agrammatic aphasics. That is, due to working memory limitations or difficulty with

syntax, these two groups may appear to be showing a preference for a bound-variable

interpretation when, in fact, they are merely strategically opting for the closest (read easy-access)

antecedent. Vasić (2006) and Vasić et al. (2006) also interpret their data in this way.

In Shapiro et al.’s (2003) study of unimpaired adults, two experiments were conducted using cross-

modal lexical priming to explore activation of antecedent NPs in elided ambiguous pronoun

resolution. One experiment used stimuli biased toward the earlier antecedent, and the other used

stimuli biased toward the second antecedent. In both studies, both antecedents were activated at

the ellipsis. The authors concluded that “…both the subject NP from the first clause and the subject

NP from the second clause appear to be re-activated at the elided position, suggesting that listeners

compute both the strict and sloppy readings momentarily and relatively simultaneously” (p. 9). The

unimpaired adults may be showing more balanced behavior as a result of a lack of control for FS

and DH. Since these 2 groups represent equally large portions of the population, we would expect

their overall behavior to be balanced if they are treated as one group and, as was the case in the

Shapiro at el. (2003) experiments, as a random factor. In fact, the authors did not report excluding

left-handed participants, which could have contributed to more balanced data.

Online studies of this particular domain of interest are far fewer, but have similar issues. For

example, Frazier & Clifton (2000) conducted a study looking at reading times for the second

conjunct in a sentence containing an ellipsis that was biased toward one of two antecedents:

coreferential or bound-variable. When a sentence was biased toward a coreferential interpretation,

the authors found longer reading times, tentatively concluding that semantics/discourse-based

anaphor resolution results in an increase in processing costs. This claim may be accurate, but it may

not be accurate for everyone. Looking at the behavioral evidence for FS+ subjects in the literature

reviewed previously, it appears rational to suspect that these costs may be slight or even non-

existent in this group. To make a stronger claim, based on studies showing clear benefits and

disadvantages to both groups (Bever et al. 1987; Bever 1988, as discussed in section 2.1.1) – it may

even be that syntactic processing is associated with higher costs in this group, though this is not

necessarily an expected outcome, given the results of the Newman, Malaia & Seo (2014) study

presented in section 2.1.2.

As a final note, pronouns have been shown to be more open to use of semantics, in terms of

resolution, than reflexives, which are more syntax-dependent (Kaiser, Runner, Sussman &

Tanenhaus 2009), making ambiguous pronouns a suitable area of investigation for the current

study.

3. Methodology

3.1 Experimental Paradigm

This study will be conducted using the visual world eye-tracking paradigm, with a ‘look and listen’

task. The critical manipulation will be between-subjects. One advantage of this paradigm for the

purposes of this study is that it relies on the well-attested tendency of people to look at relevant

images as they are referred to without involving the potential confounds or behavioral changes that

might result from task demands in, for example, probe-recognition or lexical decision tasks

(Huettig, Rommers & Meyer 2010). This may be of particular importance in looking at behavioral

differences in FS+/- groups, as FS+ have been found to be faster at lexical access than FS- under

certain circumstances. Another advantage is that this paradigm has been used several times in past

studies to investigate pronoun resolution (e.g., Arnold et al. 2000; Arnold 2001; Kaiser et al. 2009)

and has shown itself to be sensitive to a number of different relevant constraints, such as word

order, information structure, and syntactic role (Huettig et al. 2010).

3.2 Participants

Approximately 40 adult participants will be used. The experiment is currently designed for native

English speakers, but can be adapted for native Dutch speakers. They will be as balanced as

possible for familial sinistrality and degree of handedness, using the Edinburgh Handedness

Inventory (EHI) (Oldfield 1971) and a questionnaire which participants will be asked to take home

before the experiment, in order to have time to contact relevant family members (see Appendices A

& B). This is a more reliable measure of familial sinistrality than self-reporting (Karev 2011). There

is an inherent male/female imbalance in FS (the cause of which is a topic of debate; see Karev 2011

for an overview), so participants will not be balanced for sex. It is easily recognized from the above

literature review that familial sinistrality is very commonly treated as a dichotomy, though it is, in

fact, a continuous variable (Corey & Foundas 2005). In this study, a serious attempt will be made to

maintain a continuous, rather than a dichotomous, balance for both FS and DH. See section 3.5

below for a discussion of how this will be treated in statistical analysis. Ideally, the participants will

form a balanced continuum, from strongly left-handed to strongly right-handed.

3.3 Stimuli

Materials consist of 20 stimuli and 20 fillers, all auditorily presented, as well as a display on-screen.

This display will contain pictures of the two characters relevant to the story, one other image

relevant to the story, and an unrelated object. All unrelated objects will be simple, easily-

recognizable colored versions (Rossion & Pourtois 2004) of inanimate items from the Snodgrass &

Vanderwart (1980) set. The two characters will remain constant throughout the experimental

items (Pooh and Piglet), but the fillers will contain different characters (Rabbit, Tigger, etc.); the

relevant image will vary according to the story, and the unrelated filler will vary randomly. The

locations of all four images on-screen will vary randomly. Examples of images3 can be found in

Appendix B. The on-screen display matching the stimulus in (4) would look something like (3):

(3)

The auditory experimental stimuli will consist of short stories of four sentences each. The first

sentence introduces the two characters and a situation; the second and third sentences set up a

context which allows an ambiguous reading of the critical region in the fourth sentence; the fourth

sentence ends with a VP ellipsis containing a pronoun that can be interpreted with each character 3 Images will be used that are licensed under Creative Commons, or otherwise steer clear of copyright

infringement. The images contained in Appendix B are licensed for free use.

as an equally-appropriate antecedent. Since it has been shown that pronoun resolution is sensitive

to multiple constraints (e.g., Arnold et al. 2000; Arnold 2001; Kaiser et al. 2009) these will be

controlled for as much as possible. For example, the information structure of the stimuli will be

consistent and the order of mention of the two characters will be evenly- and randomly-distributed

across participants. Items will be pre-tested to ensure none contain an inadvertent bias toward one

antecedent, and no one who participates in the pre-test will participate in the experiment. Below is

one example of the stimuli. Others are in Appendix C.

(4) Pooh/Piglet and Piglet/Pooh went out to eat. There were two tasty-looking soups on the

menu. Neither of them could decide which of the two soups to order, so they each ordered a

different soup, and shared them equally. Pooh/Pigleti liked the soup hei ordered, but

Piglet/Poohj didn’t. (like the soup he(i, j) ordered).

The VP ellipsis is important in this procedure because the stimuli will be presented auditorily and

it’s vital to avoid any role that intonation might play in interpretation.

3.4 Procedure

In addition to the EHI and the FS questionnaire, participants will complete a working memory

performance test and a language proficiency measure before beginning the experimental

procedure. Then they will be introduced to the eye-tracker, which will be calibrated. The

participants then receive instructions and complete a practice session until they are comfortable

with the task. Fillers will be used for the practice session, and will not be repeated in the

experiment proper.

During the experiment, participants will see a briefly-presented central fixation point on a screen in

front of them, followed by the images described above. Simultaneous to the presentation of the

image4, the participants will be presented with an auditory stimulus (or filler). The task aims to be

very natural, and subjects will be instructed before-hand to simply listen carefully to the story and

look at the screen. Some stimuli and some fillers will be followed by yes/no comprehension

questions to ensure that the participants are listening for comprehension and staying attentive to

the task.

3.5 Data Analysis

Growth Curve Analysis (GCA) will be used to analyze the eye-tracking data. There are a number of

benefits to applying this statistical model to data from the visual world paradigm. It allows

inspection of individual variation (model1) and group variation (model2) (Mirman, Dixon &

Magnuson 2008). This approach allows for both characterization and interpretation of individual

4 This may require some pilot-testing. Huettig et al. (2011) note that the amount of preview of an image that subjects receive is important, and the likelihood that they will look at images can depend on the amount of time they have to retrieve necessary information. This is more of an issue when imag es aren’t presented for long enough, but we should also ensure that beginning presentation of the images with the beginning of the story doesn’t give the participants too long to view the image. It may be better to begin the image presentation with or slightly before the beginning of the sentence containing the region of interest.

differences. GCA estimates parameters that characterize individual variability, which then enables

us to analyze these differences further and determine whether they stem from variation in language

processing or some other source. Because the individual differences are external to the experiment,

and a continuous variable (FS/DH), this variable is added as a fixed effect in GCA (Language and

Cognitive Dynamics Laboratory 2014). Essentially, this allows for a fine-grained analysis on a

participant-by-participant basis, while maintaining the ability to look at the wider picture group-

by-group, which is precisely what is needed for the sort of research question being posed here.

Something that will be interesting to explore is which of the two measures – DH or FS – is a better

predictor, or whether they are equally good (i.e., whether they differ from one another statistically).

As mentioned in section 2.1.2, it’s unclear at this time how to predict the pattern of behavior of

people who are strongly FS+, but also strongly right-handed. Some studies (Sontam, Christman &

Jasper 2009; Sontam & Christman 2012) have suggested that degree of handedness is a better

straightforward behavioral predictor than direction of handedness, which are confounded in FS

measures. In fact, no clear picture emerges from the literature of a well-thought-out and distinctly-

defined separation between the two. In the works of Sontam and colleagues, familial sinistrality

was confounded in the analyses based only on degree of handedness. The trick here will be to avoid

issues of collinearity in statistical analysis, but the CGA makes this a relatively straightforward

matter.

4. Discussion

4.1 Predictions

Assuming that other constraints on pronoun resolution are controlled for, and all else being equal,

participants should display a range of behaviors at the critical region, depending on handedness

and familial sinistrality. Participants who are strongly right-handed and FS- should, given the

literature on the subject, show a preference for resolving the elided ambiguous pronoun via the

more syntax-dependent copy-paste procedure, which would result in a tendency to select the

antecedent in the second clause. The associated behavior in the visual world paradigm is to return

eye-gaze to the picture showing that antecedent. In example (5), this group of participants should

be more likely to look at Piglet during the critical region.

(5) Poohi liked the soup hei ordered, but Piglet j didn’t….(like the soup hej ordered.)

On the opposite end of the spectrum, participants who are left-handed with higher FS+ percentages

should prefer a more semantics/pragmatics-dependent reading of the elided ambiguous pronoun,

co-indexing the pronoun with the antecedent of the first clause. In example (6), this group of

participants should be more likely to return eye-gaze to Pooh during the critical region.

(6) Poohi liked the soup hei ordered, but Piglet j didn’t….(like the soup hei ordered.)

Alternatively, this group could also be expected to perform at chance, showing no systematic

preference for one or the other antecedent. This would not be surprising, given the results obtained

by Townsend et al. (2001), in which FS+ people showed no linear effects in a probe-recognition task

– they may be able to access both antecedents equally-well, in which case they would be as likely to

choose either. If this is the case, it would be instructive to analyze the data in way that will show

whether performance hovering around chance is modulated by DH or FS or both.

4.2 General discussion

The aim of this study is to take some of the available data regarding familial sinistrality and

handedness, and put it into the context of a theoretical framework that aims to account for some of

the individual differences that we currently see in our data, but cannot yet seriously explain. Given

the differences in processing behavior observed thus far in differently-lateralized people, it will be

useful to extend the range of experimental procedures and tasks under which these differences are

found, as a matter of exploring the robustness of the observations, as well as to look at the

participants from a perspective that is more in line with the actual population, rather than creating

false dichotomies. These dichotomies can be useful as a beginning, but in order to understand the

phenomena in question, they need to be slowly expanded into a continuum that is more truly

representative of humanity as a whole.

This is, it must be admitted, essentially a correlation study, which have their dangers, but also their

uses. A statistically significant correlation is not an answer in itself, but indicates that the question

is worth asking. That is the goal here. There is enough evidence to suggest that there may be a

causal relation between brain lateralization and language processing variation, but it remains to be

asked whether the extent of the correlation between the two warrants a deeper investigation. If this

study shows evidence that the full range of handedness and/or sinistrality might be a way to

account for certain individual linguistic variance, it may ultimately help lead us to an understanding

of where some of the noise in our experimental data comes from and how to account for at least a

portion of it, which will, in turn, make even unrelated studies stronger. As Kos et al. (2012) noted,

“Importantly, variation between individuals may partly explain the inconsistency in results with

respect to the LPC across experiments” (p. 9). Whatever the results are for this study, they will be

informative, because they can serve as a sort of signpost indicating either that we need to think

about alternative explanations for our data or that this path can be pursued in order to shed light

on some of the noise in experimental data currently obscuring a more precise understanding of

language processing.

References

Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference

continuation. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 137-162.

Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender

information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition,

76(1), B13-B26.

Bever, T. G. (2013). The biolinguistics of language universals: The next years. Language Down the

Garden Path: The Cognitive and Biological Basis for Linguistic Structures, 4 , 385.

Bever, T. G., Carrithers, C., Cowart, W., & Townsend, D. J. (1989). Language processing and familial

handedness. From Reading to Neurons: Issues in the Biology of Language and Cognition, ,

331-357.

Bever, T. G., & Poeppel, D. (2010). Analysis by synthesis: A (re-) emerging program of research for

language and vision. Biolinguistics, 4(2-3), 174-200.

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic

P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55-73.

Chan, S. (2007). Linguistic sequencing in the cortex and basal ganglia. (PhD dissertation). The

University of Arizona.

Corey, D., & Foundas, A. (2005). Measuring familial sinistrality: Problems with dichotomous

classification. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition, 10(4), 321-335.

Cowart, W. (1989). Notes on the biology of syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic

Research, 18(1), 89-103.

Davenport, T., & Coulson, S. (2013). Hemispheric asymmetry in interpreting novel literal language:

An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 51(5), 907-921.

Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’approach to language comprehension.

Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1‐2), 71-83.

Hagoort, P. (2005). On broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,

9(9), 416-423.

Hancock, R., & Bever, T. G. (2013). Genetic factors and normal variation in the organization of

language. Biolinguistics, 7, 75-95.

Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language

processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 151-171.

Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research,

1146, 2-22.

Kaiser, E., Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2009). Structural and semantic

constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition, 112(1), 55-80.

Karev, G. B. (2011). Quantitatively assessed familial sinistrality in right-, mixed-, and left-handers.

Laterality, 16(1), 93-106.

Kolk, H. H., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal

working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1-36.

Koornneef, A. W., Avrutin, S., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2011). Tracking the preference for bound-

variable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. Experiments at the

Interfaces, 37, 67.

Kos, M., Van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Individual variation in the late positive complex to

semantic anomalies. Frontiers in psychology, 3.

Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax.

Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.

Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological

correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685-2701.

Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics:(de) constructing the

N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920-933.

Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual

world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and

Language, 59(4), 475-494.

Newman, S., Malaia, E., & Seo, R. (2014). Does degree of handedness in a group of right-handed

individuals affect language comprehension? Brain and Cognition, 86, 98-103.

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The edinburgh inventory.

Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113.

Rommers, J., Dijkstra, T., & Bastiaansen, M. (2013). Context-dependent semantic processing in the

human brain: Evidence from idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5),

762-776.

Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting snodgrass and vanderwart's object pictorial set: The

role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception-London-, 33(2), 217-236.

Segaert, K., Kempen, G., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2013). Syntactic priming and the lexical

boost effect during sentence production and sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Brain

and Language, 124(2), 174-183.

Shapiro, L. P., Hestvik, A., Lesan, L., & Rachel Garcia, A. (2003). Charting the time-course of VP-

ellipsis sentence comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural

analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 1-19.

Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name

agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174.

Sontam, V., & Christman, S. D. (2012). Semantic organisation and handedness: Mixed-handedness is

associated with more diffuse activation of ambiguous word associates. Laterality:

Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 17(1), 38-50.

Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic

phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 161-184.

Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). A retrospective reflection, reconstruction, and appreciation. Language

Down the Garden Path: The Cognitive and Biological Basis for Linguistic Structures, 4, 406.

Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules

MIT Press.

Townsend, D. J., Carrithers, C., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Familial handedness and access to words,

meaning, and syntax during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 78(3), 308-331.

Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Simon, G., Crivello, F., Jobard, G., Zago, L., Perchey, G., Pierre-Yves, H., Joliot, M.,

Petit, L., Mellet, E., Mazoyer, B. (2010). Effect of familial sinistrality on planum temporale

surface and brain tissue asymmetries. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991), 20(6), 1476-

1485.

van den Noort, M., Bosch, P., Haverkort, M., & Hugdahl, K. (2008). A standard computerized version

of the Reading Span Test in different languages. European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 24(1), 35.

Vasić, N. (2006). Pronoun comprehension in agrammatic aphasia: The structure and use of

linguistic knowledge. (PhD dissertation). LOT.

Vissers, C. T. W., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2007). The interplay of heuristics and parsing routines

in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs and reaction times. Biological Psychology,

75(1), 8-18.

Willems, R. M., Van der Haegen, L., Fisher, S. E., & Francks, C. (2014). On the other hand: Including

left-handers in cognitive neuroscience and neurogenetics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15,

193-201.

Appendix A

Edinburgh Handedness Inventory Surname:

Given Names:

Date of Birth:

Sex:

Please indicate your preferences in the use of hands in the following activities by putting + in the

appropriate column. Where the preference is so strong that you would never try to use the other

hand unless absolutely forced to, put ++. If in any case you are really indifferent put + in both

columns. Some of the activities require both hands. In these cases, the part of the task, or object, for

which hand preference is wanted is indicated in brackets. Please try to answer all the questions,

and only leave a blank if you have no experience at all of the object or task.

Activity Left Right

Writing

Drawing

Throwing

Scissors

Toothbrush

Knife (without fork)

Spoon

Broom (upper hand)

Striking Match (match)

Opening box (lid)

Which foot do you prefer to kick with?

Which eye do you use when using only one?

Appendix B

Familial Sinistrality Questionnaire

Surname:

Given Names:

Date of birth:

All questions below refer to living relatives only. Please complete as many questions as possible by

contacting your family members and asking them directly. If you cannot contact someone, but you

or another member of your family is absolutely certain about the answer for this person, please

indicate this in your response.

1) Siblings:

a) How many siblings do have? Count only those who share both parents.

b) Of these siblings, how many use their left hand for at least one of the following: writing, drawing,

throwing?

2) Parents:

a) Do either or both of your biological parents use their left hand for at least one of the following

activities: writing, drawing, or throwing? (If you don’t know both biological parents, please indicate

this in your answer.)

3) Aunts & Uncles:

a) How many aunts and uncles do you have who share both parents with your biological mother?

How many for your father?

b) Of these aunts and uncles, how many use their left hand for at least one of the following: writing,

drawing, throwing?

4) Grandparents:

a) Of the total possible 4 biological grandparents, how many can you answer for in this

questionnaire?

b) Of these, how many use their left hand for at least one of the following: writing, drawing,

throwing?

Appendix C

Stimuli.

(1)

Pooh/Piglet and Piglet/Pooh went out to eat. There were two tasty-looking soups on the menu.

Neither of them could decide which of the two soups to order, so they each ordered a different

soup, and shared them equally. Pooh/Pigleti liked the soup hei ordered, but Piglet/Poohj

didn’t….(like the soup he(i, j) ordered). (images: Pooh, Piglet, soup, unrelated)

(2)

Pooh/Piglet and Piglet/Pooh went to the store to buy new shirts. They each picked out a shirt and

went to the fitting room together to try them on. They both wanted to see what the shirt looked like

on/get each other’s opinions, and also to get each other’s opinion/see what the shirt looked like

on.5 Pooh/Pigleti liked the shirt hei picked out, but Piglet/Poohj didn’t….(like the shirt he(i, j) picked

out.) (images: Pooh, Piglet, shirt, unrelated)

(3)

Pooh/Piglet and Piglet/Pooh had never been to the beach, so they decided to go. They went to one

beach that Pooh/Piglet had heard of, and one beach that Piglet/Pooh had heard of. Pooh/Piglet i

liked the beach hei had heard of, but Piglet/Poohj didn’t….(like the beach he(i, j) heard of.) (images:

Pooh, Piglet, beach, unrelated)

(4)

Pooh/Piglet and Piglet/Pooh went to see two movies together. They each chose one of the movies

they would see. Pooh/Pigleti liked the movie hei had chosen, but Piglet/Poohj didn’t….(like the

movie he(i, j) had chosen.) (images: Pooh, Piglet, movie projector, unrelated)

(5)

Pooh/Piglet and Piglet/Pooh wanted to plant a garden together, but neither of them had any

gardening experience. They each decided on a few different flowers to plant. Once they started to

bloom, Pooh/Pigleti liked the flowers hei had chosen, but Piglet/Poohj didn’t….(like the flowers he(i,

j) had chosen.) (images: Pooh, Piglet, flowers or garden, unrelated)

Fillers.

(1)

Rabbit and Eeyore decided to go for a bicycle ride together. They couldn’t agree on which direction

to go, so they flipped a coin. Eeyore won and they walked to the East. In the end, Rabbit was happy

about how things worked out, but Eeyore wasn’t. (images: Rabbit, Eeyore, walking path, unrelated)

(2)

Tigger and Rabbit went to gather blackberries, but they couldn’t agree on what to do with them.

Rabbit wanted to make jam and Tigger wanted to make a pie. Tigger was so enthusiastic that Rabbit

finally agreed that they should make a pie. When it came time to eat the pie, Rabbit was happy

about their decision, and Tigger was, too. (images: Tigger, Rabbit, pie, unrelated)

(3)

Eeyore and Tigger wanted to cut down their own Christmas tree, but they had different ideas about

how big the tree should be. Tigger wanted a big tree and Eeyore wanted small tree. In the end,

5 Without this line, the reading might be differently-biased for men & women. Women are more likely to get each

other’s opinions, which might bias them toward the higher antecedent, whereas men might be biased toward the

lower antecedent.

Eeyore convinced Tigger that a small tree would be easier to carry home. When they were carrying

the tree home, Eeyore was happy that they’d gotten a small tree, and Tigger was too. (images:

Eeyore, Tigger, tree, unrelated)

(4)

Eeyore and Rabbit were taking a trip together, but they had trouble deciding how to travel. Eeyore

wanted to go by train, and Rabbit wanted to fly in an airplane. Rabbit finally convinced Eeyore that

they should fly. When they arrived, Eeyore was glad they had decided to fly, but Rabbit wasn’t.

(images: Eeyore, Rabbit, airplane, unrelated)

(5)

Pooh and Piglet decided to get a pet together, but they weren’t sure what to get. Pooh wanted to get

a puppy, but Piglet wanted to get a hamster. Piglet eventually agreed that a puppy would be more

fun. When they brought the puppy home, Piglet was happy with their decision, as so was Pooh.

(Pooh, Piglet, puppy, unrelated)

Appendix D

Examples of images for characters and related objects.