scholarly journals Unifying syntactic theory and sentence processing difficulty through a connectionist minimalist parser

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Gerth ◽  
Peter beim Graben
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Processing Difficulty

scholarly journals Subject encodings and retrieval interference

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Arnett ◽  
Matthew Wagers
Keyword(s):  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Retrieval Cues ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Syntactic Properties ◽  
Retrieval Interference ◽  
Processing Difficulty

Interference has been identified as a cause of processing difficulty in linguistic dependencies, such as the subject-verb relation (Van Dyke and Lewis, 2003). However, while mounting evidence implicates retrieval interference in sentence processing, the nature of the retrieval cues involved - and thus the source of difficulty - remains largely unexplored. Three experiments used self-paced reading and eye-tracking to examine the ways in which the retrieval cues provided at a verb characterize subjects. Syntactic theory has identified a number of properties correlated with subjecthood, both phrase-structural and thematic. Findings replicate and extend previous findings of interference at a verb from additional subjects, but indicate that retrieval outcomes are relativized to the syntactic domain in which the retrieval occurs. One, the cues distinguish between thematic subjects in verbal and nominal domains. Two, within the verbal domain, retrieval is sensitive to abstract syntactic properties associated with subjects and their clauses. We argue that the processing at a verb requires cue-driven retrieval, and that the retrieval cues utilize abstract grammatical properties which may reflect parser expectations.

scholarly journals The Contributions of Singular and Plural Nouns to Sentence Processing Complexity: Evidence from Reading Time

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel H. Messer ◽  
Shelia Kennison
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Experimental Psychology ◽  
Reading Time ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Conceptual Representation ◽  
Psychonomic Bulletin ◽  
Psycholinguistic Research ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
And Linguistics ◽  
Processing Difficulty

The nature of semantic representations of plural nouns has been a subject of debates in the literature. The present research investigated the extent to which there are differences in the processing of plural versus single noun descriptions (e.g., the large chairs vs. the large chair).  In two reading experiments, we tested whether plural (versus singular) nouns appearing in sentences were more difficult to process initially and/or led to increased processing difficulty when occurring in sentences that contain a temporary syntactic ambiguity. Reading time on syntactically ambiguous sentences containing plural or singular nouns were compared with reading time on unambiguous control sentences. The results of both experiments demonstrated significant effects of sentence ambiguity.  No effects or interactions involving noun number were observed, indicating that the complexity of plural nouns does not result in processing difficulty during sentence comprehension. References Adams, B., Clifton, C., & Mitchell, D. (1998). Lexical guidance in sentence processing? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5(2), 265-270. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 94-117. Barker, C. (1992). Group Terms in English: Representing Groups as Atoms. Journal of Semantics 9, 69-93. Barsalou, L. W. (1999).  Perceptual symbol systems. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 22, 577-660. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359. Dominguez, A., Cuetos, F., & Segui, J. (1999). The processing of grammatical gender and number in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(5), 485-498. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. (1990). Use of verb information during syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye tracking and word by word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 555-568. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 725-745. Ferreira, F., & McClure, K. K. (1997). Parsing of garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 273–306. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 58-93. Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kennison, S. M. (2001). Limitations on the use of verb information in sentence comprehension.  Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 132-138. Kennison, S. M. (2005).  Different time courses of integrative semantic processing for plural and singular nouns: Implications for theories of sentence processing. Cognition, 97, 269-294. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 601-618). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.  New, B., Brysbaert, M., Segui, J., Ferrand, L., & Rastle, K. (2004). The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 568-585. Patson, N. D. (2014). The processing of plural expressions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(8), 319-329. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12085 Patson, N. D., George, G., & Warren, T. (2014). The conceptual representation of number. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1349-1365. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.863372 Patson, N.(2014). The processing of plural expressions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(8), 319-329. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12085 Patson, N. (2016). Evidence in support of a scalar implicature account of plurality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(7), 1140-1153. doi:10.1037/xlm0000224 Patson, N. D., & Ferreira, F. (2009). Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 464-486. Patson, N., George, G., & Warren, T. (2014). The conceptual representation of number. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1349-1365. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.863372 Patson, N., & Warren, T. (2011). Building complex reference objects from dual sets. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 443–459. Patson, N., & Warren, T. (2014). Comparing the roles of referents and event structures in parsing preferences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 408–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.788197 Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime (Version 2.0). [Computer software and manual]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. (1997). How complex simple words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 118-139.   Schwarzschild, R. (1996). Pluralities. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25(4), 425-437. Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Search strategies in syntactic reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 183-194. Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002).  Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological science, 13(2), 168-171.

scholarly journals A linear approach to relative multiple embedding

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kei Yoshimoto
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Language Competence ◽  
Linguistic Performance ◽  
Linear Approach ◽  
Processing Step ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Human Sentence Processing ◽  
Processing Difficulty ◽  
Made In

It is generally accepted among psycholinguists that real-time human sentence processing proceeds incrementally from left to right. Recently proposals have been made in the domain of syntax to reduce phenomena which have hitherto been accounted for in terms of linguistic performance to linear structures given at the level of competence. Keeping in line with this tendency in research, this paper tries to reestablish the much discussed relationship between the two aspects of language, competence and performance: the issue of processing difficulty dependent on sorts of multiple clause embedding is addressed by incorporating into HPSG a mechanism reflecting left-to-right processing and memory costs calculated at each processing step.

scholarly journals A principled approach to feature selection in models of sentence processing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Smith ◽  
Shravan Vasishth
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Retrieval Cues ◽  
Feature Representations ◽  
Self Organized ◽  
Porcelain Plate ◽  
Retrieval Interference ◽  
Processing Difficulty ◽  
Recent Extension

Among theories of human language comprehension, cue-based memory retrieval has proven to be a useful framework for understanding when and how processing difficulty arises in the resolution of long-distance dependencies. Most previous work in this area has assumed that very general retrieval cues like [+subject] or [+singular] do the work of identifying (and sometimes misidentifying) a retrieval target in order to establish a dependency between words. However, recent work suggests that general, hand-picked retrieval cues like these may not be enough to explain illusions of plausibility (Cunnings & Sturt, 2018), which can arise in sentences like The letter next to the porcelain plate shattered. Capturing such retrieval interference effects requires lexically specific features and retrieval cues, but hand-picking the features is hard to do in a principled way and greatly increases modeler degrees of freedom. To remedy this, we use word embeddings, a well-established method for creating distributed feature representations, for lexical features and retrieval cues. We show that the similarity between the features and the cues (a measure of plausibility) predicts total reading times in Cunnings and Sturt’s eye-tracking data. The features can easily be plugged into existing parsing models (including cue-based retrieval and self-organized parsing), putting very different models on more equal footing and facilitating future quantitative comparisons. In addition to this methodological contribution, our results suggest that, contrary to Cunnings and Sturts’ original conclusions, focused words might be more prominent in memory, making them less susceptible to interference, as predicted by a recent extension to ACT-R (Engelmann, Jäger, & Vasishth, 2019).

Competition During the Processing of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities: Evidence from Eye Movements during Reading

2008 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin B. Paterson ◽  
Ruth Filik ◽  
Simon P. Liversedge
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Wide Scope ◽  
Quantifier Scope ◽  
Grammatical Function ◽  
Scope Ambiguity ◽  
Multiple Factors ◽  
Processing Cost ◽  
Scope Ambiguities ◽  
Eye Movements During Reading ◽  
Processing Difficulty

We investigated the processing of sentences containing a quantifier scope ambiguity, such as Kelly showed a photo to each critic, which is ambiguous between the indefinite phrase ( a photo) having one or many referents. Ambiguity resolution requires the computation of relative quantifier scope, with either a photo or each critic taking wide scope, thereby determining the number of referents. Using eye tracking, we established that multiple factors, including the grammatical function and surface linear order of quantified phrases, along with their lexical characteristics, interact during the processing of relative quantifier scope, with conflict between factors incurring a processing cost. We discuss the results in terms of theoretical accounts attributing sentence-processing difficulty to either reanalysis (e.g., Fodor, 1982) or competition between rival analyses (e.g., Kurtzman & MacDonald, 1993).

scholarly journals Bilingual deaf readers’ use of semantic and syntactic cues in the processing of English relative clauses

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 980-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
PILAR PIÑAR ◽  
MATTHEW T. CARLSON ◽  
JILL P. MORFORD ◽  
PAOLA E. DUSSIAS
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Reading Speed ◽  
Syntactic Complexity ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Deaf Readers ◽  
Syntactic Cues ◽  
Processing Difficulty ◽  
Object Relative

Eye fixation measures were used to examine English relative clause processing by adult ASL–English bilingual deaf readers. Participants processed subject relative clauses faster than object relative clauses, but expected animacy cues eliminated processing difficulty in object relative clauses. This brings into question previous claims that deaf readers’ sentence processing strategies are qualitatively different from those of hearing English native speakers. Measures of English comprehension predicted reading speed, but not differences in syntactic processing. However, a trend for ASL self-ratings to predict the ability to handle syntactic complexity approached significance. Results suggest a need to explore how objective ASL proficiency measures might provide insights into deaf readers’ ability to exploit syntactic cues in English.

Structural priming during sentence comprehension in Chinese–English bilinguals

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
YUFEN HSIEH
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Translation Equivalent ◽  
Reading Experiment ◽  
Reading Chinese ◽  
Processing Difficulty

ABSTRACTCross-linguistic priming in comprehension is understudied, and it remains unclear whether bilinguals have shared abstract syntactic representations during sentence comprehension. This article reports a self-paced reading experiment investigating the influence of Chinese passive relative clauses on the interpretation of English sentences that are temporarily ambiguous between an active main clause and a passive reduced relative (dispreferred) structure. The results showed that reading Chinese passive relative primes reduced processing difficulty in English targets at the dispreferred disambiguation. Chinese-to-English priming in comprehension occurred without lexical and word-order equivalence between primes and targets. In addition, translation-equivalent verbs did not boost cross-linguistic structural priming. The findings support an account under which bilingual sentence processing involves abstract, unordered syntactic representations that are integrated between languages.

Sentence Processing and Syntactic Theory

2021 ◽  
pp. 305-324
Author(s):  
Dave Kush ◽  
Brian Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Theory

Bridging the Gap: Evidence from ERPs on the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies

1993 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kluender ◽  
Marta Kutas
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Central Place ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Vacant Position ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Unbounded Dependencies ◽  
Anterior Negativity

Since the early days of generative grammar, the study of “unbounded dependencies” such as wh-questions and relative clauses has occupied a central place in both syntactic theory and language processing research. The problem that such constructions pose is as follows. In a normal wh-question, a wh-phrase is typically displaced to the left periphery of a clause (What did you say — to John?); this displaced constituent is often referred to as a “filler.” The vacant position (indicated in the previous example by a blank line) where it would ordinarily occur in an “echo” question (You said what to John?) is correspondingly referred to as a “gap.” Filler and gap are mutually dependent on each other since they share syntactic and semantic information essential for successful sentence interpretation. However, since sentence processing is a sequential operation, a filler cannot be assigned to its gap until some time after it has occurred. In other words, the filler must be held in working memory until such time as filler-gap assignment can take place. The intent of the research reported here was to examine the processing of unbounded dependencies in English as revealed in event-related brain potentials (ERPs). To this end, subjects were shown both grammatical and ungrammatical yes/no-questions (Did you say something to John?) and wh-questions. A number of comparisons made at various points in these questions showed that both the storage of a filler in working memory and its subsequent retrieval for filler-gap assignment were associated with an enhanced negativity between 300 and 500 msec poststimulus over left anterior sites. This effect of left anterior negativity (LAN) was independent of and orthogonal to the grammaticality of the eliciting condition. We show how this interpretation coincides with recent studies that demonstrate a correlation between left anterior negativity, working memory capacity, and successful language processing.

When Hearing Does Not Mean Understanding: On the Neural Processing of Syntactically Complex Sentences by Listeners With Hearing Loss

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Margreet Vogelzang ◽  
Christiane M. Thiel ◽  
Stephanie Rosemann ◽  
Jochem W. Rieger ◽  
Esther Ruigendijk
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Secondary Task ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Cognitive Demands ◽  
Sentence Complexity ◽  
Complex Sentences ◽  
And Task

Purpose Adults with mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss typically exhibit issues with speech understanding, but their processing of syntactically complex sentences is not well understood. We test the hypothesis that listeners with hearing loss' difficulties with comprehension and processing of syntactically complex sentences are due to the processing of degraded input interfering with the successful processing of complex sentences. Method We performed a neuroimaging study with a sentence comprehension task, varying sentence complexity (through subject–object order and verb–arguments order) and cognitive demands (presence or absence of a secondary task) within subjects. Groups of older subjects with hearing loss ( n = 20) and age-matched normal-hearing controls ( n = 20) were tested. Results The comprehension data show effects of syntactic complexity and hearing ability, with normal-hearing controls outperforming listeners with hearing loss, seemingly more so on syntactically complex sentences. The secondary task did not influence off-line comprehension. The imaging data show effects of group, sentence complexity, and task, with listeners with hearing loss showing decreased activation in typical speech processing areas, such as the inferior frontal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus. No interactions between group, sentence complexity, and task were found in the neuroimaging data. Conclusions The results suggest that listeners with hearing loss process speech differently from their normal-hearing peers, possibly due to the increased demands of processing degraded auditory input. Increased cognitive demands by means of a secondary visual shape processing task influence neural sentence processing, but no evidence was found that it does so in a different way for listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document