Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: Evidence from semantic priming
Tóm tắt
In this paper, we report the results of a study which investigates the processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences. We examined the processing of sentences in which an embedded clause is interpretable as either a complement clause or as a relative clause, as in, for example,“The receptionist informed the doctor that the journalist had phoned about the events.” The embedded clause in such sentences is typically analyzed as a complement to the verbinformed, rather than as a relative clause modifyingthe doctor. A number of models parsing predict this is the only analysis ever considered, while others predict that both interpretations are computed in parallel. Using a cross-model semantic priming technique, we probed for activation ofdoctor just after the embedded verb. Since only the relative clause analysis contains a connection betweenthe doctor and the embedded verb, we expected reactivation ofdoctor at that point only if the relative clause analysis were a viable option. Our results suggest that this is the case: Compared to priming in an ambiguous control sentence, a significant reactivation effect was obtained. These results are argued to support a model of parsing in which attachment of a clause may be delayed.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18 (1), 129–144.
Altmann, G. (1988). Ambiguity, parsing strategies, and computational models.Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 73–98.
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing.Cognition, 30, 191–238.
Chomsky, N. (1981).Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
Clifton, C., Jr. & Ferreira, F. (1989). Ambiguity in context.Language and Cognitive Processes, 4 (3/4) SI, 77–103.
Crain, S. (1980).Pragmatic constraints on sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Irvine.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. J. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the phsychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds),Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing.Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
Fodor, J. D. (in press). Empty categories in sentence processing: A question of visibility. In G. T. M. Altmann & R. Shillcock (Eds.),Cognitive models of speech processing: The Sperlonga meeting II. Hove: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L. (1979).On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut) Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model.Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Gorrell, P. (1987).Studies in human sentence processing: Ranked-parallel versus serial models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Gorrell, P. (1989). Establishing the loci of serial and parallel effects in syntactic processing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18 (1), 61–73.
Gorrell, P. (1992).Syntax and perception. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.
Hickok, G. (1993). Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden-path sentences.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 239–249.
Holmes, V. M., Kennedy, A., & Murray, W. S. (1987). Syntactic structure and the garden path.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 277–294.
Kennedy, A., Murray, W. S., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment.Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, (3/4) SI, 51–76.
Kurtzman, H. (1985).Studies in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. InProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 129–136.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.
Nicol, J. (1989). What the parser knows about the grammar: Psycholinguistic evidence.Proceedings of WCCFL VIII, 289–302.
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18 (1), 5–19.
Pritchett, B. (1992)Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Radford, A. (1988).Transformational grammar. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1987). Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 657–673.
Shillcock, R. (1982). The on-line resolution of pronominal anaphora.Language and Speech, 25, 385–401.
Steedman, M., & Altmann, G. (1989). Ambiguity in context: A reply.Language and Cognitive Processes, 4 (3/4) SI, 105–122.
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 661–689.
Swinney, D. A. (1991). The resolution of indeterminacy during language comprehension: Perspectives on modularity in lexical, structural, and pragmatic processing. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Noth-Holland.
Swinney, D., Ford, M., & Bresnan, J. (1989).On the temporal course of gap-filling and antecedent assignment during sentence comprehension. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at San Diego.
Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J., & Seidenberg, M. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–441.
Weinberg, A. (1992)A parsing theory for the nineties: Minimal commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.
Wright, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1984). Lexical decision in sentences.Memory and Cognition 12: 31–45.