Empty categories in sentence processing

Abstract An empty category is an inaudible/invisible constituent of a sentence, postulated by linguists to account for certain regularities of sentence structure. To identify an empty category and associate it with an antecedent that will determine its interpretation, a sentence processing device must apply considerable linguistic knowledge, both universal and language-particular. Experiments show that human processing of empty category constructions is efficient and linguistically informed. Different linguistic theories postulate different empty categories. Recent and ongoing experiments by several researchers attempt to determine which kinds of empty categories are recognised by the human processor. Assuming a transparent relationship between the parser and the grammar, the results of these studies could contribute to the evaluation of competing linguistic theories.

[1]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Constraints on gaps: is the parser a significant influence? , 1983 .

[2]  J. Nicol.  Coreference processing during sentence comprehension , 1988 .

[3]  D. Swinney,et al.  Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[4]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar , 1976 .

[5]  Paul Schachter,et al.  Auxiliary reduction: an argument for GPSG , 1984 .

[6]  Brian D. Joseph,et al.  Studies in relational grammar , 1984 .

[7]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Sentence matching and overgeneration , 1987, Cognition.

[8]  D Swinney,et al.  The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[9]  C. Clifton,et al.  Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension , 1983, Cognition.

[10]  Paul Griffith Gorrell,et al.  STUDIES OF HUMAN SYNTACTIC PROCESSING: RANKED-PARALLEL VERSUS SERIAL MODELS , 1987 .

[11]  David Caplan,et al.  Disorders of Syntactic Comprehension , 1988 .

[12]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  On the nature of proper government , 1990 .

[13]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[14]  K. Forster,et al.  Sentence matching and well-formedness , 1987, Cognition.

[15]  M. MacDonald.  Priming effects from gaps to antecedents , 1989 .

[16]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Information-based syntax and semantics , 1987 .

[17]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  On modularity in syntactic processing , 1988 .

[18]  Noam Chomsky.  Essays on Form and Interpretation , 1977 .

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

[20]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Grammar, interpretation, and processing from the lexicon , 1989 .

[21]  T. Bever,et al.  The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps , 1989 .

[22]  D. Swinney,et al.  Inference Generation During Auditory Language Comprehension , 1990 .

[23]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Conditions on transformations , 1971 .

[24]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar , 1986, CSLI Lecture Notes.

[25]  Noam Chomsky.  Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding , 1982 .

[26]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser , 1989 .

[27]  Howard Steven Kurtzman,et al.  Studies in syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1985 .

[28]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  Computational complexity and natural language , 1987 .

[29]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[30]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[31]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse , 1988 .

[32]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Natural language parsing: How can grammars help parsers? , 1985 .

[33]  Frederick J. Newmeyer,et al.  Linguistic Theory In America , 1980 .

[34]  T. Bever,et al.  Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension , 1988 .

[35]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  On Wh-Movement , 1977 .

[36]  Nelson Correa,et al.  An Attribute-Grammar Implementation of Government-binding Theory , 1987, ACL.

[37]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar , 1985 .

[38]  K. Ehrlich,et al.  Comprehension of Pronouns , 1980 .

[39]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Parsing as deduction: The use of knowledge of language , 1989 .

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

[41]  E. Williams,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Grammar , 1986 .

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

[43]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents , 1983, Memory & cognition.

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

[45]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[46]  Peter Sells,et al.  Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories : an introduction to government-binding theory, generalized phrase structure grammar, and lexical-functional grammar , 1988 .

[47]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition , 1986 .

[48]  K. Forster,et al.  The psychological status of overgenerated sentences , 1985, Cognition.

[49]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Lexical Expectations in Sentence Comprehension. , 1984 .

[50]  Laurie A. Stowe,et al.  Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location , 1986 .