The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure

In this paper the relative frequencies of the possible resolutions of ambiguities involving noun phrase attachment sites are compared to the results of off-line psycholinguistic measurements of syntactic complexity. A lack of correlation between the two is observed. It is therefore argued that the comprehension system is distinct from what is driving the frequencies in the corpora. A production heuristic separate from the comprehension system is proposed to account for the observed frequencies.

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[2]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank , 1993, CL.

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

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

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

[6]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On not being led up the garden path : The use of context by the psychological syntax processor , 1985 .

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

[8]  Paola Merlo,et al.  A corpus-based analysis of verb continuation frequencies for syntactic processing , 1994 .

[9]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences , 1983 .

[10]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Constituent Attachment and Thematic Role Assignment in Sentence Processing: Influences of Content-Based Expectations , 1988 .

[11]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Structural Ambiguity and Lexical Relations , 1991, ACL.

[12]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .

[13]  Edward Gibson,et al.  A computational theory of human linguistic processing: memory limitations and processing breakdown , 1991 .

[14]  M. MacDonald.  The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity , 1993 .

[15]  J. Kimball.  Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

[16]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  Two Principles of Parse Preference , 1990, COLING.

[17]  R. Job,et al.  Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy , 1993 .

[18]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records , 1995 .

[19]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

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

[21]  G. Hickok,et al.  Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism , 1996, Cognition.

[22]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  W. Hays.  Statistics, 4th ed. , 1988 .

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

[25]  Steven P. Abney,et al.  Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. , 1991 .

[26]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[27]  C. Clifton,et al.  Relative Clause Interpretation Preferences in Spanish and English , 1993, Language and speech.

[28]  John R. Anderson.  The Architecture of Cognition , 1983 .

[29]  John R. Anderson.  Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications , 1980 .