Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense

Linguistic and psycholinguistic research has documented that there exists a close relationship between a verb’s meaning and the syntactic structures in which it occurs, and that learners and comprehenders take advantage of this relationship both in acquisition and in processing. We address implications of these facts for issues in structural ambiguity resolution, arguing that comprehenders are sensitive to meaning-structure correlations based not on the verb itself but on its specific senses, and that they exploit this information on-line. We demonstrate that individual verbs show significant differences in their subcategorisation profiles across three corpora, and that cross-corpora bias estimates are much more stable when sense is taken into account. Finally, we show that consistency between sense-contingent subcategorisation biases and experimenters’ classifications largely predicts results of recent experiments. Thus comprehenders learn and exploit meaning-form correlations at the level of individual verb senses, rather than the verb in the aggregate.

[1]  C Clifton,et al.  The use of syntactic information in filling gaps , 1986, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

[3]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Representation of Polysemous Words , 2001 .

[4]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Book Reviews: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing , 1999, CL.

[5]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  Automatic Extraction of Subcategorization from Corpora , 1997, ANLP.

[6]  R. Langacker Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites , 1987 .

[7]  Stanley A. Rice,et al.  Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions , 1992 .

[8]  David R. Dowty Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[9]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, Computational, and Experimental Issues , 2002, Computational Linguistics.

[10]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.

[11]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[12]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access , 2002 .

[13]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  S M Kennison,et al.  American English Usage Frequencies for Noun Phrase and Tensed Sentence Complement-Taking Verbs , 1999, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[15]  P. Resnik Selectional constraints: an information-theoretic model and its computational realization , 1996, Cognition.

[16]  It isn't so , 1973 .

[17]  Cynthia Fisher,et al.  On the semantic content of subcategorization frames , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction , 1999, Computational Linguistics.

[19]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  How Verb Subcategorization Frequencies Are Affected By Corpus Choice , 1998, COLING.

[20]  J. Trueswell,et al.  How to Prune a Garden Path by Nipping It in the Bud: Fast Priming of Verb Argument Structure , 1998 .

[21]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

[22]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

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

[24]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms , 1984 .

[26]  Neal J. Pearlmutter,et al.  Lexical semantics as a basis for argument structure frequency biases , 2002 .

[27]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[28]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar” , 1988 .

[29]  George A. Miller,et al.  Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database , 1990 .

[30]  S. Kennison Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence comprehension , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  Julie E. Boland The Relationship Between Syntactic and Semantic Processes in Sentence Comprehension. , 1997 .

[32]  H. Gleitman,et al.  Human simulations of vocabulary learning , 1999, Cognition.

[33]  Gerry T. M. Altmann,et al.  Thematic role assignment in context , 1999 .

[34]  Michael R. Brent,et al.  From Grammar to Lexicon: Unsupervised Learning of Lexical Syntax , 1993, Comput. Linguistics.

[35]  Srini Narayanan,et al.  Bayesian Models of Human Sentence Processing , 1998 .

[36]  Beth Levin,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation , 1993 .

[37]  D. Gary Miller,et al.  1. Theoretical Prerequisites , 1994 .

[38]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  An introduction to latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[39]  M. Pickering,et al.  Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing , 1999 .

[40]  Christopher D. Manning Automatic Acquisition of a Large Sub Categorization Dictionary From Corpora , 1993, ACL.

[41]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of Language , 1940 .

[42]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  A Probabilistic Model of Lexical and Syntactic Access and Disambiguation , 1996, Cogn. Sci..

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

[44]  Douglas Roland,et al.  Verb Sense and Verb Subcategorization Probabilities , 2001 .

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

[46]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences , 2003 .

[47]  George Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things , 1987 .

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

[49]  G. Altmann Ambiguity in sentence processing , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[50]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[51]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[52]  J. Henderson,et al.  Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  R. Langacker Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[54]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Learning argument structure generalizations , 2004 .

[55]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling Thematic and Discourse Context Effects with a Multiple Constraints Approach: Implications for the Architecture of the Language Comprehension System , 1999 .

[56]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  ON COMPREHENDING SENTENCES: SYNTACTIC PARSING STRATEGIES. , 1979 .

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

[58]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  Verb Subcategorization Frequency Differences between Business- News and Balanced Corpora: The Role of Verb Sense , 2000, ACL 2000.

[59]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. , 1992 .

[60]  益子 真由美 Argument Structure , 1993, The Lexicon.