Advertisement

Attach Anyway

  • Janet Dean Fodor
  • Atsu Inoue
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 21)

Abstract

The diagnostic model of garden path recovery that we have advocated in previous work holds that no repair processes are intrinsically costly. Repair costs depend entirely on the difficulty of establishing what revisions to make. The diagnosis process does not require a special-purpose inference system as long as the parser abides by the Attach Anyway principle: when it encounters an input word that doesn’t fit into the current structure, it attaches it in the least unacceptable way. The attachment creates a conflict internal to the phrase marker, which is then resolved in consultation with the grammar by a process we call Adjust. In this chapter we propose a principled constraint on the operations of Adjust: the Grammatical Dependency Principle. We show that this clarifies some previously noted phenomena such as the Thematic Overlay Effect and the differential difficulty of different types of steal operations. The examples we present show that neither raising repairs nor semantic revisions are difficult per se.

Keywords

Selection Feature Argument Structure Head Noun Thematic Role Input Word 
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. Abney, S. 1986. Licensing and parsing. In J. McDonough and B. Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, 17, 1, 1 - 15.Google Scholar
  2. Bader, M. (this volume). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, G.N. and Tanenhaus, M.K. 1988. Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (ed.), Thematic Relations, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21. New York, NY: Academic Press, 263 - 300.Google Scholar
  4. Clifton, C. 1993. Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 2, 222 - 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, P. and Wang, C. 1996. Antecedents and blockers of long-distance reflexives: The case of Chinese ziji. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 3, 357 - 390.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, W.A. and Paccia-Cooper, J. 1980. Syntax and Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J.M. 1991a. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725 - 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J.M. 1991b. How is verb information used during syntactic parsing? In G.B. Simpson (ed.), Understanding Word and Sentence. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 305 - 330.Google Scholar
  9. Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J.M. (this volume). Syntactic reanalysis, thematic processing, and sentence comprehension.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J.D. and Frazier, L. 1980. Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition, 8, 417 - 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fodor, J.D. and Frazier, L. 1983. Local attachment in a one-stage parser. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, J.D. and Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407 - 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fodor, J.D. and Inoue, A. (in press). Garden path recovery: The Grammatical Dependency Principle. To appear in CUNYForum,20, Fall 1997.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J.D. and Inoue, A. (in preparation a). The Diagnosis Model: Revision as Last Resort. To appear in M. De Vincenzi and V. Lombardo (eds.), Cross Linguistic Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Fodor, J.D. and Inoue, A. (in preparation b). Null symptoms and empty categories. Manuscript, CUNY Graduate Center, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Frazier, L. 1990. Identifying structure under X°. In A. Jongman and A. Lahiri (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 3, 87 - 109.Google Scholar
  18. Frazier, L. and Rayner, K. 1988. Parameterizing the language processing system: Left-vs. right-branching within and across languages. In J.A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 247 - 279.Google Scholar
  19. Frazier, L. and Fodor, J.D. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 1 - 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazier, L. and Clifton, C. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frazier, L. and Clifton, C. (this volume). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Gorrell, P. (this volume). Syntactic analysis and reanalysis in sentence processing. Gorrell, P. 1995a. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorrell, P. 1995b. Parsing theory and phrase-order variation in German V2 clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 135 - 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoeks, J., Vonk, W., Hagoort, P., and Brown, C. 1997. Processing coordination: Eye movements and ERPs. Poster presented at Tenth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Igoa, J.M. 1995. Parsing decisions and the Construal hypothesis: Attachment preferences in primary phrases in Spanish. Paper presented at Second Symposium on Psycholinguistics, Tarragona, Spain.Google Scholar
  26. Inoue, A. 1991. A Comparative Study of Parsing in English and Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  27. Inoue, A. and Fodor, J.D. 1995. Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 9 - 63.Google Scholar
  28. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., and Scheepers, C. 1994. Reanalysis vs. internal repairs: Non-monotonic processes in sentence perception. In B. Hemforth, C. Scheepers, and G. Strube (eds.), First Analysis, Reanalysis and Repair. IIG-Berichte 8/94. Freiburg: Institut für Informatik and Gesellschaft, 1 - 23.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, R.L. 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
  31. Lewis, R.L. (this volume). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden path.Google Scholar
  32. Marcus, M.P., Hindle, D., and Fleck, M.M. 1983. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21, 129 - 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitchell, D.C. 1987. Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M.Coltheart (ed.), The Psychology of Reading, Attention and Performance, Vol. 12. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 601 - 681.Google Scholar
  34. Ni, W., Fodor, J.D., Crain, S., and Shankweiler, D. (submitted). Anomaly detection: Eye movement patterns.Google Scholar
  35. Phillips, C. 1995. Right Association: A single strategy for structural parsing. Paper presented at NELS 26, MIT, October 1995.Google Scholar
  36. Pickering, M. and Traxler, M. 1996. Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  37. Pritchett, B.L. 1987. Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Pritchett, B.L. 1991. Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 3, 251 - 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pritchett, B.L. 1992. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stevenson, S. 1993. A competition-based explanation of syntactic attachment preferences and garden path phenomena. Association for Computational Linguistics, 31, 266 - 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stevenson, S. (this volume). Parsing as incremental restructuring.Google Scholar
  42. Sturt, P. and Crocker, M.W. 1996. Monotonic syntactic processing: a cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 5, 449 - 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sturt, P. and Crocker, M.W. (this volume). Generalized monotonicity for reanalysis models.Google Scholar
  44. Wanner, E. and Maratsos, M. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G.A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119 - 161.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Dean Fodor
    • 1
  • Atsu Inoue
    • 2
  1. 1.CUNY Graduate School and University Center USA
  2. 2.Kantogakuin UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations