Syntactic ambiguity resolution and revision processes in complement sentences

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroki Fujita
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Syntactic Ambiguity ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Correct Analysis ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
Contradictory Evidence ◽  
Processing Heuristic

Temporarily ambiguous sentences are sometimes misanalysed and require revision during sentence processing. Previous studies have reported that non-syntactic information such as verb subcategorisation information does not always prevent misanalysis. However, there is contradictory evidence about whether non-syntactic information is immediately used to recover the globally correct analysis. Previous studies have also reported that initially assigned misinterpretations linger after disambiguation. Some recent studies have suggested that this lingering misinterpretation does not result from a failure to conduct syntactic revision. However, the current evidence for syntactic revision is scarce, limited to a syntactic structure and eye-movement while reading task, and crucially does not necessarily prove that syntactic revision is successfully conducted. The present study reports three self-paced reading experiments that investigate these issues, using temporarily ambiguous complement sentences. Experiment 1 showed that temporarily ambiguous complement sentences are misanalysed during sentence processing, which subsequently causes garden-path effects and lingering misinterpretation. Experiment 2 suggested that non-syntactic information is immediately used to recover the globally correct analysis. However, there was an indication that the incorrect analysis remains activated. Experiment 3 revealed that syntactic revision is conducted in complement sentences without regressive eye movements. The present study argues that the good-enough account can explain these results if this account assumes that a syntactic processing heuristic such as the Canonical Sentoid Strategy is used during the processing of temporarily ambiguous complement sentences.

Learning to parse and its implications for language acquisition

2007 ◽  
pp. 634-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Trueswell ◽  
Lila R. Gleitman
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Syntactic Ambiguity ◽  
Adult Listener ◽  
Processing Abilities ◽  
Time Reading ◽  
Theory Of Language

This article describes what is known about the adult end-state, namely, that the adult listener recovers the syntactic structure of an utterance in real-time via interactive probabilistic parsing procedures. It examines evidence indicating that similar mechanisms are at work quite early during language learning, such that infants and toddlers attempt to parse the speech stream probabilistically. In the case of learning, though, the parsing is in aid of discovering relevant lower-level linguistic formatives such as syllables and words. Experimental observations about child sentence-processing abilities are still quite sparse, owing in large part to the difficulty in applying adult experimental procedures to child participants; reaction time, reading, and linguistic judgement methods have all have been attempted with children. The article discusses real-time sentence processing in adults, experimental exploration of child sentence processing, eye movements during listening and the kindergarten-path effect, verb biases in syntactic ambiguity resolution, prosody and lexical biases in child parsing, parsing development in a head-final language, and the place of comprehension in a theory of language acquisition.

scholarly journals Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Kaan ◽  
Tamara Y. Swaab
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Syntactic Analysis ◽  
Ambiguous Sentence ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Human Sentence Processing ◽  
Electrophysiological Differentiation

One of the core aspects of human sentence processing is the ability to detect errors and to recover from erroneous analysis through revision of ambiguous sentences and repair of ungrammatical sentences. In the present study, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to help identify the nature of these processes by directly comparing ERPs to complex ambiguous sentence structures with and without grammatical violations, and to simpler unambiguous sentence structures with and without grammatical violations. In ambiguous sentences, preference of syntactic analysis was manipulated such that in one condition, the structures agreed with the preferred analysis, and in another condition, a nonpreferred but syntactically correct analysis (garden path) was imposed. Nonpreferred ambiguous structures require revision, whereas ungrammatical structures require repair. We found that distinct ERPs reflected different characteristics of syntactic processing. Specifically, our results are consistent with the idea that a positivity with a posterior distribution across the scalp (posterior P600) is an index of syntactic processing difficulty, including repair and revision, and that a frontally distributed positivity (frontal P600) is related to ambiguity resolution and/ or to an increase in discourse level complexity.

The Influence of only on Syntactic processing of “Long” Relative Clause Sentences

2002 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon P. Liversedge ◽  
Kevin B. Paterson ◽  
Emma L. Clayes
Keyword(s):  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Tracking Data ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Initial Processing

We report an eye movement experiment investigating the influence of the focus operator only on syntactic processing of “long” relative clause sentences. Paterson, Liversedge, and Underwood (1999) found that readers were garden pathed by “short” reduced relative clause sentences containing the focus operator only. They argued that due to thematic differences between “short” and “long” relative clause sentences, garden path effect might not occur when “long” reduced relative clause sentences are read. Eye-tracking data show that garden path effects found during initial processing of the disambiguating verb of “long” reduced sentences without only were absent or delayed in the case of counterparts with only. We discuss our results in terms of current theories of sentence processing.

scholarly journals Overt and covert prosody are reflected in neurophysiological responses previously attributed to grammatical processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anastasia Glushko ◽  
David Poeppel ◽  
Karsten Steinhauer
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Spectral Power ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Neural Responses ◽  
Prosodic Cues ◽  
Power Peak ◽  
Interactive Relationship ◽  
Online Sentence Processing

AbstractRecent neurophysiological research suggests that slow cortical activity tracks hierarchical syntactic structure during online sentence processing (e.g., Ding, Melloni, Zhang, Tian, & Poeppel, 2016). Here we tested an alternative hypothesis: electrophysiological activity peaks at sentence constituent frequencies reflect cortical tracking of overt or covert (implicit) prosodic grouping. In three experiments, participants listened to series of sentences while electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded. First, prosodic cues in the sentence materials were neutralized. We found an EEG spectral power peak elicited at a frequency that only ‘tagged’ covert prosodic change, but not any major syntactic constituents. In the second experiment, participants listened to a series of sentences with overt prosodic grouping cues that either aligned or misaligned with the syntactic phrasing in the sentences (initial overt prosody trials). Immediately after each overt prosody trial, participants were presented with a second series of sentences (covert prosody trial) with all overt prosodic cues neutralized and asked to imagine the prosodic contour present in the previous, overt prosody trial. The EEG responses reflected an interactive relationship between syntactic processing and prosodic tracking at the frequencies of syntactic constituents (sentences and phrases): alignment of syntax and prosody boosted EEG responses, whereas their misalignment had an opposite effect. This was true for both overt and covert (imagined) prosody. We conclude that processing of both overt and covert prosody is reflected in the frequency tagged neural responses at sentence constituent frequencies, whereas identifying neural markers that are narrowly reflective of syntactic processing remains difficult and controversial.

Susceptibility to interference: underlying mechanisms, and implications for prediction

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 696-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
EDITH KAAN
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Healthy Young Adult ◽  
Aging Research ◽  
Structure Building ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Increased Susceptibility

Over the years, models proposed for second-language (L2) processing have been remarkably parallel to those proposed for Broca's aphasia. Differences between agrammatic and unaffected language processing have been explained, e.g., in terms of lack of detailed syntactic structure building (Grodzinsky, 1995), resource deficits (Haarman, Just & Carpenter, 1997), slow syntactic processing (Burkhardt, Avrutin, Piñango & Ruigendijk, 2008), or slowed lexical access (Love, Swinney, Walenski & Zurif, 2008). Each of these approaches have their homolog in L2 processing (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006; McDonald, 2006; Dekydtspotter, Schwartz & Sprouse, 2006; Hopp, 2013, respectively). It is therefore not surprising that Cunnings's proposal (Cunnings, 2016) parallels another idea in aphasia and aging research, namely that deviations from healthy young adult monolingual sentence processing can be attributed to an increased susceptibility to interference (e.g., Sheppard, Walenski, Love & Shapiro, 2015).

scholarly journals Memory encoding of syntactic information involves domain-general attentional resources: Evidence from dual-task studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. 1285-1296
Author(s):  
Evelien Heyselaar ◽  
Katrien Segaert
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Target Sentence ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Memory Encoding ◽  
Single Task ◽  
Attentional Resources ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
Information Domain

We investigate the type of attention (domain-general or language-specific) used during syntactic processing. We focus on syntactic priming: In this task, participants listen to a sentence that describes a picture (prime sentence), followed by a picture the participants need to describe (target sentence). We measure the proportion of times participants use the syntactic structure they heard in the prime sentence to describe the current target sentence as a measure of syntactic processing. Participants simultaneously conducted a motion-object tracking (MOT) task, a task commonly used to tax domain-general attentional resources. We manipulated the number of objects the participant had to track; we thus measured participants’ ability to process syntax while their attention is not taxed, slightly taxed, or overly taxed. Performance in the MOT task was significantly worse when conducted as a dual task compared with as a single task. We observed an inverted U-shaped curve on priming magnitude when conducting the MOT task concurrently with prime sentences (i.e., memory encoding), but no effect when conducted with target sentences (i.e., memory retrieval). Our results illustrate how, during the encoding of syntactic information, domain-general attention differentially affects syntactic processing, whereas during the retrieval of syntactic information, domain-general attention does not influence syntactic processing.

scholarly journals Syntactic representations in the human brain: beyond effort-based metrics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aniketh Janardhan Reddy ◽  
Leila Wehbe
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Language System ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
Show Evidence ◽  
The Brain

AbstractWe are far from having a complete mechanistic understanding of the brain computations involved in language processing and of the role that syntax plays in those computations. Most language studies do not computationally model syntactic structure, and most studies that do model syntactic processing use effort-based metrics. These metrics capture the effort needed to process the syntactic information given by every word [9, 10, 25]. They can reveal where in the brain syntactic processing occurs, but not what features of syntax are processed by different brain regions. Here, we move beyond effort-based metrics and propose explicit features capturing the syntactic structure that is incrementally built while a sentence is being read. Using these features and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) recordings of participants reading a natural text, we study the brain representation of syntax. We find that our syntactic structure-based features are better than effort-based metrics at predicting brain activity in various parts of the language system. We show evidence of the brain representation of complex syntactic information such as phrase and clause structures. We see that regions well-predicted by syntactic features are distributed in the language system and are not distinguishable from those processing semantics. Our results call for a shift in the approach used for studying syntactic processing.

Sequential Interpretation of Pitch Prominence as Contrastive and Syntactic Information: Contrast Comes First, but Syntax Takes Over

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-478
Author(s):  
Yuki Hirose
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Contextual Information ◽  
Pitch Accent ◽  
Visual Context ◽  
Syntactic Ambiguity ◽  
Visual World Paradigm ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Branching Structures ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
Prosodic Boundary

Pitch accent serves multiple duties (encoding lexical accent, syntactic structure, and focus) in spoken Japanese. This study investigates how listeners interpret a role-ambiguous pitch prominence surfacing as F0 rise, which could be a cue to the resolution of a syntactic ambiguity between two possible branching structures, or a signal of contrastive focus on the constituent accompanied by the rise. Two visual world paradigm experiments tested the same Japanese linguistic stimuli with and without pitch emphasis on the second word of structures of the following form: modifier + N1 + N2. In Experiment 1, the visual context suppressed the availability of the contrastive interpretation; in Experiment 2, the visual context made the contrastive interpretation available. We found that the same pitch event can be interpreted as both syntax-encoding and contrast-encoding information within the course of processing the same sentence, as long as contextual information is made visually available. When contrastive focus is pragmatically felicitous, it is computed immediately, as soon as the incoming input is accompanied by a notable pitch prominence (Experiment 2). The same prosodic cue can then be re-interpreted as a signal to syntax after the branching ambiguity is recognized due to subsequent input (Experiments 1 and 2). This is most consistent with the view that an initially assigned prosodic boundary is exploited for re-interpretation.

scholarly journals Neural Measures Reveal Implicit Learning during Language Processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1636-1649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura J. Batterink ◽  
Larry Y. Cheng ◽  
Ken A. Paller
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Font Color

Language input is highly variable; phonological, lexical, and syntactic features vary systematically across different speakers, geographic regions, and social contexts. Previous evidence shows that language users are sensitive to these contextual changes and that they can rapidly adapt to local regularities. For example, listeners quickly adjust to accented speech, facilitating comprehension. It has been proposed that this type of adaptation is a form of implicit learning. This study examined a similar type of adaptation, syntactic adaptation, to address two issues: (1) whether language comprehenders are sensitive to a subtle probabilistic contingency between an extraneous feature (font color) and syntactic structure and (2) whether this sensitivity should be attributed to implicit learning. Participants read a large set of sentences, 40% of which were garden-path sentences containing temporary syntactic ambiguities. Critically, but unbeknownst to participants, font color probabilistically predicted the presence of a garden-path structure, with 75% of garden-path sentences (and 25% of normative sentences) appearing in a given font color. ERPs were recorded during sentence processing. Almost all participants indicated no conscious awareness of the relationship between font color and sentence structure. Nonetheless, after sufficient time to learn this relationship, ERPs time-locked to the point of syntactic ambiguity resolution in garden-path sentences differed significantly as a function of font color. End-of-sentence grammaticality judgments were also influenced by font color, suggesting that a match between font color and sentence structure increased processing fluency. Overall, these findings indicate that participants can implicitly detect subtle co-occurrences between physical features of sentences and abstract, syntactic properties, supporting the notion that implicit learning mechanisms are generally operative during online language processing.

scholarly journals 'Constituent length' effects in fMRI do not provide evidence for abstract syntactic processing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cory Shain ◽  
Hope Kean ◽  
Benjamin Lipkin ◽  
Josef Affourtit ◽  
Matthew Siegelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Temporal Cortex ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Length Effect ◽  
Language System ◽  
Fmri Study ◽  
Abstract Sentence

How are syntactically and semantically connected word sequences, or constituents, represented in the human language system? An influential fMRI study, Pallier et al. (2011, PNAS), manipulated the length of constituents in sequences of words or pseudowords. They reported that some language regions (in the anterior temporal cortex and near the temporo-parietal junction) were sensitive to constituent length only for sequences of real words but not pseudowords. In contrast, language regions in the inferior frontal and posterior temporal cortex showed the same pattern of increased response to longer constituents - and similar overall response magnitudes - for word and pseudoword sequences. Based on these results, Pallier et al. argued that the latter regions represent abstract sentence structure. Here we identify methodological and theoretical concerns with the Pallier et al. study and conduct a replication across two fMRI experiments. Our results do not support Pallier et al.'s critical claim of distinct neural specialization for abstract syntactic representations. Instead, we find that all language regions show a similar profile of sensitivity to both constituent length and lexicality (stronger responses to real-word than pseudoword stimuli). In addition, we argue that the constituent length effect in these experiments i) is not readily grounded in established theories of sentence processing, and ii) may not actually derive from syntactic structure building, but may instead reflect the temporal receptive window of the human language system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document