Hello! Thank you for visiting my virtual poster. If you'd like more information, or if you have any questions/comments, please email me at pianibes@usc.edu or leave a comment at my OSF page (by clicking on the speech bubble on the right upper corner). Thank you! We use a typological property of Brazilian Portuguese, anaphoric null objects, to show that resolution of subject/object ambiguities is sensitive not only to syntactic complexity and plausibility/semantics (e.g. [2]) but also to anaphoric/coreference information. Due to optionally transitive verbs (e.g. *read*) allowing both *overt *and *implicit objects* (*IO*s, ex.2,3), structures like (1) are temporarily ambiguous: ‘the book’ is initially parsed as the object of ‘read,’ but needs to be re-analyzed when it’s disambiguated as the subject of ‘fell’ [1,2]. The garden-path arises because syntactic simplicity (Late Closure) favors parsing the noun as an object rather than parsing it as a subject and positing an IO. Sentences like (1) result in lingering misinterpretations (e.g. [2]). With verbs like ‘read’, English only allows IOs with underspecified referents (ex.3), not anaphoric ones (ex.4): The missing object of ‘read’ cannot refer to a previously-mentioned book. However, IOs in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) can have *either* an underspecified *or* discourse-based anaphoric interpretation (ex.3-4). (Whether these are ellipses or null *pro* [4,5] is not crucial here). This means that, in the right context, when BP readers encounter a noun after an optionally transitive verb in an embedded clause, they could *(a)* parse the noun as the direct object, *(b)* posit an underspecified IO and parse the noun as a subject, or–unlike English–*(c)* *posit an anaphoric IO *that refers to an already-mentioned referent in the discourse and parse the noun as a subject*.* Option (a) is preferred over (b), due to Late Closure. Crucially, BP lets us to test the interaction between syntax and discourse: Do readers go for the *syntactic route *(noun=object, (a)) or do they pursue a *discourse-based route *(noun=subject, (c)) (*and be less garden-pathed*) if an antecedent is available? We test this by manipulating the* presence/absence of an antecedent. * To further probe the syntax-discourse relation, we test whether the postverbal noun’s definiteness modulates the ease of (re)analyzing the verb as having an anaphoric IO. *Definite* NPs typically represent old/given information and can (be inferred to) co-refer with a preceding IO, but *indefinites* are less likely to co-refer with already-evoked entities. Thus, *discourse considerations* predict garden-path sentences with *definite NPs are easier to process* at the disambiguation point than ones with indefinite NPs: Even if the parser was initially garden-pathed, a definite NP can act as a cue signalling a (coreferring) IO; an indefinite NP provides no such cue. *Experiment:* In a self-paced reading study (47 native BP speakers), we manipulated (i) structural ambiguity (with comma/without), (ii) presence of potential antecedent (present/absent) and (iii) definiteness of the ambiguous noun phrase (def/indef); See Table 2 for the design. *Results:* We analyzed reading times (RTs) at the disambiguating verb and spillover (Table 2). At the verb and spillover regions, RTs are slower in ambiguous (commaless) conditions (basic garden-path; p<.001, Fig.1). This slowdown occurred even when an antecedent was available: There is no sign that *presence of an antecedent* prevents garden-pathing by biasing people to assume an anaphoric IO and correctly parse the noun as a subject. In fact, the effect is in the other direction: conditions with antecedents yielded *larger* slowdowns (p<.01). Furthermore, sentences with *definite postverbal NPs *are faster (than indefinites) across all conditions at various points in the critical area (p’s<.01). This fits with the discourse-based prediction that people assess whether the subject NP can co-refer with the IO. If so, processing is facilitated, indicating re-analysis is not purely syntactic but also sensitive to anaphoric relations. For every trial, a *question* (*Did I read the book?*) probed if the NP was interpreted as an object. Here we see that *presence of an antecedent facilitates recovery from garden-pathing/decreases lingering misinterpretations: *“no” responses were more frequent when a potential antecedent was present (p<.001, Fig.2). This suggests that an antecedent facilitates positing an *anaphoric* IO and interpreting the NP as a subject, as predicted. We also see that in *unambiguous*, no-antecedent conditions, “no” answers are less frequent when the NP is definite (p<.001): Without an antecedent or a garden-path, a cataphoric relation between the IO and the NP is preferred over an underspecified referent if possible (with definites). Table 1. BP on the right (When helpful for exposition, ∅ is used denote implicit objects) 1.While the man read *the book* fell on his foot. |While the man read ∅, the book fell on his foot 2. [obj=overt noun] The man read the book. O homem leu o livro. 3. [obj=implicit] Underspecified referent => read something The man read ∅. O homem leu ∅. 4. [obj=implicit] Anaphoric referent => read the book *** The man grabbed the bookk and read ∅k. *ok* O homem pegou o livrok e leu ∅k. Table 2. Conditions and example target items (critical area: verb + spillover is underlined.) 5. No antec + Indef Depois que eu li (,) *um livro* *caiu no meu pé* esquerdo. *After I read (,) a book fell on my left foot.* 6. No antec + Def Depois que eu li (,) *o livro* *caiu no meu pé* esquerdo. *After I read (,) the book fell on my left foot.* 7. Antec+Indef Depois que eu *recebi uma carta e* li (,) *um livro* *caiu no meu* *pé* esquerdo. *After I received a letter and read (,) a book fell on my left foot.* 8. Antec+Def Depois que *eu **recebi uma carta e* li (,) *o livro* *caiu no meu pé* esquerdo. *After I received a letter and read (,) the book fell on my left foot.*