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.
Much of the material in this chapter was presented at seminars given at the University of Freiburg, Germany, and the University of Torino, Italy, during July and September 1996. We would like to thank the seminar participants for their instructive comments, especially Barbara Hemforth, Lars Konieczny, Leonardo Lesmo, Vincenzo Lombardo, and Gerhard Strube. We would also like to thank Suzanne Stevenson and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions which have greatly improved the quality of this chapter. Any remaining errors are our own. The research reported here was supported by the award of ESRC studentship No. R00429334338 to the first author.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adams, B.C. 1995. A model for strategic reanalysis in sentence processing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, VA.
Bader, M. 1996. On reanalysis: Evidence from German. Unpublished manuscript, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
Barker, C. und Pullum, G.K. 1990. A theory of command relations. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 1, 1–34.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ferreira, F. und Henderson, J.M. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.
Fodor, J.D. und Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 4, 405–432.
Fodor, J.D. und Inoue, A. (this volume). Attach Anyway.
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.
Frazier, L. 1990a. Identifying structure under X°. Yearbook of Morphology, 3, 87–105.
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.
Frazier, L. und Clifton, C. 1996. Construal. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L. und Clifton, C. (this volume). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility.
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.
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.
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.
Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Kamide, Y. und Mitchell, D.C. 1997. Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 2, 247–254.
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.
Lombardo, V. (this volume). A computational model of recovery.
MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., und Seidenberg, M.S. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 4, 676–703.
Marcus, M., Hindle, D., und Fleck, M. 1983. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21, 129–136.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102.
Pritchett, B.L. 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 3, 539–576.
Pritchett, B.L. 1992. Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Steedman, M.J. 1991. Structure and intonation. Language, 67, 2, 260–297.
Stevenson, S. 1994a. Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 4, 295–321.
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 University
Sturt, P. (in preparation). Syntactic Reanalysis in Human Language Processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburghm, Edinburgh, Scotland.
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.
Sturt, P. und Crocker, M.W. (to appear). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
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.
Wall, R. 1972. Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. Rnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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
Weinberg, A. 1993. Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal committment theory goes East. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 3, 339–364.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sturt, P., Crocker, M.W. (1998). Generalized Monotonicity for Reanalysis Models. In: Fodor, J.D., Ferreira, F. (eds) Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5037-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9070-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive