Advertisement

Generalized Monotonicity for Reanalysis Models

  • Patrick Sturt
  • Matthew W. Crocker
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 21)

Abstract

A common assumption in psycholinguistic theory is that reanalysis is constrained by a preference to preserve certain aspects of the representation built in response to previous input. In this chapter, we discuss this notion of representation-preservation in the wider context of models of reanalysis as a whole, and point out that in order to define a representation-preserving constraint on reanalysis, we must specify not only which aspects of representation should be preserved, but what is meant by the notion of preservation. We propose that the appropriate notion of preservation is that which is assumed in monotonic models of parsing, where structural relations between linguistic elements are updated totally non-destructively from state to state. Previous monotonic theories of parsing have limited themselves to consideration of phrase structure representations. In contrast, we propose a general framework within which one may formulate models which apply the same notion of preservation to other representation types. The framework is discussed with reference to a model which preserves thematic structure.

Keywords

Relative Clause Ambiguity Resolution Precedence Relation Phrase Structure Tree Initial Attachment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, B.C. 1995. A model for strategic reanalysis in sentence processing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, VA.Google Scholar
  2. Bader, M. 1996. On reanalysis: Evidence from German. Unpublished manuscript, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, C. und Pullum, G.K. 1990. A theory of command relations. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 1, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clifton, C. (to appear). Evaluating models of human sentence processing. In M.W. Crocker, M.J. Pickering, und C.E. Clifton (eds.), Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clifton, C., Speer, S., und Abney, S.P. 1991. Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuetos, F. und Mitchell, D.C. 1988. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 72–105.Google Scholar
  7. De Vincenzi, M. und Job, R. 1993. Some observations on the universality of the Late-Closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 2, 189–206.Google Scholar
  8. De Vincenzi, M. und Job, R. 1995. An investigation of Late Closure: the role of syntax, thematic structure and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 5, 1303–1321.Google Scholar
  9. Ferreira, F. und Henderson, J.M. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J.D. und Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 4, 405–432.Google Scholar
  11. Fodor, J.D. und Inoue, A. (this volume). Attach Anyway.Google Scholar
  12. Frazier, L. 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  13. Frazier, L. 1990a. Identifying structure under X°. Yearbook of Morphology, 3, 87–105.Google Scholar
  14. Frazier, L. 1990b. Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the HPSM? In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d’Arcais, und K. Rayner (eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 303–331.Google Scholar
  15. Frazier, L. und Clifton, C. 1996. Construal. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Frazier, L. und Clifton, C. (this volume). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility.Google Scholar
  17. Frazier, L. und Rayner, K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, E.A.F. 1991. A Computational Theory of Human Linguistic Processing: Memory Limitations and Processing breakdown Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Available as Center for Machine Translation Technical Report CMU-CMT-91–125.Google Scholar
  19. Gilboy, E.A.F., Sopena, J.M., Clifton, C., und Frazier, L. 1995. Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inoue, A. und Fodor, J.D. 1995. Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka und N. Nagai (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 9–63.Google Scholar
  22. Kamide, Y. und Mitchell, D.C. 1997. Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 2, 247–254.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, R. 1993. An Architecturally-based Theory of Human Sentence Comprehension Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Available as Technical Report CMU-CS-93–226 from reports@cs.cmu.edu.Google Scholar
  24. Lombardo, V. (this volume). A computational model of recovery.Google Scholar
  25. MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., und Seidenberg, M.S. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 4, 676–703.Google Scholar
  26. Marcus, M., Hindle, D., und Fleck, M. 1983. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marslen-Wilson, W.D. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pritchett, B.L. 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 3, 539–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pritchett, B.L. 1992. Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., und Frazier, L.. 1983. The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steedman, M.J. 1991. Structure and intonation. Language, 67, 2, 260–297.Google Scholar
  32. Stevenson, S. 1994a. Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 4, 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevenson, S. 1994b. A Competitive Attachment Model for Resolving Syntactic Ambiguities in Natural Language Parsing Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Available as Technical Report TR-18 from Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers UniversityGoogle Scholar
  34. Sturt, P. (in preparation). Syntactic Reanalysis in Human Language Processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburghm, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  35. Sturt, P. und Crocker, M.W. 1996. Monotonic syntactic processingLa cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 5, 499–494.Google Scholar
  36. Sturt, P. und Crocker, M.W. (to appear). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Google Scholar
  37. Trueswell, J.G., Tanenhaus, M.K. und Kello, C. 1993. Verb-specific constraints on sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical [reference from garden paths. Journal of experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 3, 528–553.Google Scholar
  38. Wall, R. 1972. Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. Rnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Warner, J. und Glass, A.L. 1987. Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgements of garden path sentences Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714–738 Google Scholar
  40. Weinberg, A. 1993. Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal committment theory goes East. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 3, 339–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinberg, A. 1995. Licensing constraints and the theory of language processing. In R. Mazuka und N. Nagai (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 235–255.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Sturt
    • 1
  • Matthew W. Crocker
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations