Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records

Several current models of human parsing maintain that initial structural decisions are influenced (or tuned) by the listener's or reader's prior contact with language. The precise workings of these models depend upon the “grain,” or level of detail, at which previous exposures to language are analyzed and used to influence parsing decisions. Some models are premised upon the use of fine-grained records (such as lexical cooccurrence statistics). Others use coarser measures. The present paper considers the viability of models based exclusively on the use of fine-grained lexical records. The results of several studies are reviewed and the evidence suggests that, if they are to account for the data, experience-based parsers must draw upon records or representations that capture statistical regularities beyond the lexical level. This poses problems for several parsing models in the literature.

[1]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993 .

[2]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[3]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  Judging the veracity of ambiguous sentences. , 1970 .

[4]  C. Clifton,et al.  Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[5]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints , 1995, Cognition.

[6]  M K Tanenhaus,et al.  A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference , 1994, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[7]  Donald Mitchell,et al.  Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. , 1987 .

[8]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[9]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[10]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. , 1994 .

[11]  Julie E. Boland,et al.  Chapter 13 The Role of Lexical Representations in Sentence Processing , 1991 .

[12]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Against lexical generation of syntax , 1989 .

[13]  Don C. Mitchell,et al.  Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? , 1990 .

[14]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Modeling the Use of Frequency and Contextual Biases in Sentence Processing , 1996 .

[15]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. , 1989 .

[16]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Combinatory lexical information and language comprehension , 1991 .

[17]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing , 1990 .

[18]  Don C. Mitchell,et al.  Verb guidance and other lexical effects in parsing , 1989 .

[19]  L. Frazier,et al.  Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs , 1995, Cognition.

[20]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Modifier Attachment in Sentence Parsing: Evidence from Dutch , 1996 .

[21]  Andrew J. Stewart,et al.  Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language , 1995 .

[22]  C. Clifton,et al.  Thematic roles in sentence parsing. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[23]  G. Altmann Cognitive models of speech processing , 1991 .

[24]  M K Tanenhaus,et al.  Lexical projection and the interaction of syntax and semantics in parsing , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[25]  Jacques Mehler,et al.  Role of surface and base structure in the perception of sentences , 1967 .

[26]  Don C. Mitchell,et al.  Lexical guidance in sentence parsing , 1991 .

[27]  F. Cuetos,et al.  Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish , 1988, Cognition.