A Computational Model of Recovery

  • Vincenzo Lombardo
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 21)


This paper introduces a computational model of recovery in sentence processing. The model consists of a general computational framework which defines a space of possible models and a set of heuristics which constrain the framework to a specific model. The basic idea is to diagnose the error source that has caused the failure and to repair the structure in order to solve the inconsistencies. The diagnosis of the error is accomplished through a heuristic search procedure (which makes selected accesses to the syntactic structure and returns the last safe position) operating together with a constraint on possible structural repairs. The repair component reprocesses input items only when it is not possible to reuse the structures built during the first pass analysis. This chapter describes the architecture of the general framework and the component modules, and sketches some heuristics that explain well-known cases of reanalysis in the literature.


Ambiguity Resolution Syntactic Structure Syntactic Category Breakdown Point Dependency Tree 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abney, S.P. 1989. A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bader, M. and Lasser, I. 1994. German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: evidence for the immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 225–242.Google Scholar
  3. Bever, T. 1970. The cognitive bias for linguistic structures. In J. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 279–352.Google Scholar
  4. Blank, G.D. 1989. A finite and real-time processor for natural language. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 32, 10, 1174–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Vincenzi, M. and Job, R. 1993. Some observations on the universality of the Late-Closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 2, 189–206.Google Scholar
  6. Earley, J. 1970. An efficient context-free parsing algorithm. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eberhard, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Sedivy, J., and Tanenhaus, M. 1995. Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fodor, J.D. and Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 5, 407–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., and Kaplan, R. 1982. A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 727–796.Google Scholar
  11. Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frazier, L. and Fodor, J.D. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frazier, L. and Rayner, K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Gibson, E.A.F., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-González, E., and Hickok, G. 1996. Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs, J.R. and Bear, J. 1990. Two principles of parsing preferences. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 90), Helsinki, 162–167.Google Scholar
  18. Hudson, R. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Huyck, C.R. and Lytinen, S.L. 1993. Efficient heuristic natural language parsing. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligente (AAAI 93), 386–391.Google Scholar
  20. Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Just, M.A. and Carpenter, P.A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 1, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kay, M. 1980. Algorithm Schemata and Data Structures in Syntactic Processing. Technical Report No. CSL-80–12. Xerox Park, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Kimball, J.P. 1973. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lesmo, L. and Lombardo, V. 1995. Efficient Dependency Parsing. Technical Report No. 13–95. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Lombardo, V. 1995a. Parsing and recovery. In Proceedings of the I7th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 648–653.Google Scholar
  27. Lombardo, V. I995b. Splitting the use of syntax and lexicon in incremental processing. Paper presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP) Conference 1995,Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  28. Lombardo, V. and Lesmo, L. 1996. An Earley-type recognizer for dependency grammar. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 96), 723–728.Google Scholar
  29. MacDonald, M., Pearmmutter, N., and Seidenberg, M. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 4, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcus, M. 1980. A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marcus, M., Hindle, D., and Fleck, M. 1983. D-Theory: Talking about talking about trees. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McRoy, S. W. and Hirst, G. 1990. Race-based parsing and syntactic disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 14, 313–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mel’cuk, I. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  34. Milne, R. 1982. Predicting garden path sentences. Cognitive Science, 6, 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newell, A. 1990. Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Perlmutter, D. 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pickering, M. J. 1994. Processing local and unbounded dependencies: A Unified Account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 4, 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pickering, M.J. and Barry, G. 1991. Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pritchett, B. 1992. Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sgall, P., Haijcova, E., and Panevova, J. 1986. The Meaning of Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht: Dordrecht Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  40. Shieber, S.M. 1983. Sentence disambiguation by a shift-reduce parsing technique. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21, 113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spivey-Knowlton, M. and Sedivy, J. C. 1995. Resolving attachment ambiguity with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 3, 227–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spivey-Knowlton, M., Trueswell, J., and Tanenhaus, M. 1993. Contexts effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psycology, 47, 2, 276–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevenson, S. 1993. A competition-based explanation of syntactic attachment preferences and garden path phenomena. Association for Computational Linguistics, 31, 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stevenson, S. 1994. A unified model of preference and recovery mechanisms in human parsing. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 824–829.Google Scholar
  45. Sturt, P. and Crocker, M. 1995. Incrementality and monotonicity in syntactic processing. In D. Milward and P. Sturt (ed.), Incremental Interpretation. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, Vol. 11. Edinburgh: Centre for Cognitive Science, 23–66.Google Scholar
  46. Sturt, P. and Crocker, M. 1996. Monotonic syntactic processing: a cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 15, 449–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tomita, M. 1987. An efficient augmented-context-free parsing algorithm. Computational Linguistics, 13, 31–46.Google Scholar
  48. Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M., and Garnsey, S.M. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinberg, A. 1993. Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 3, 339–364Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Lombardo
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitá di TorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations