Trends in syntactic parsing: anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing

Syntactic parsing processes establish dependencies between words in a sentence. These dependencies affect how comprehenders assign meaning to sentence constituents. Classical approaches to parsing describe it entirely as a bottom-up signal analysis. More recent approaches assign the comprehender a more active role, allowing the comprehender's individual experience, knowledge, and beliefs to influence his or her interpretation. This review describes developments in three related aspects of sentence processing research: anticipatory processing, Bayesian/noisy-channel approaches to sentence processing, and the 'good-enough' parsing hypothesis.

[1]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The processing of extraposed structures in English , 2012, Cognition.

[2]  Frank Keller,et al.  Probabilistic Modeling of Discourse-Aware Sentence Processing , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[3]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[4]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The 'Good Enough' Approach to Language Comprehension , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[5]  Roger P. G. van Gompel,et al.  Reanalysis in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Current Constraint-Based and Two-Stage Models , 2001 .

[6]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  The Syntax-Semantics Interface , 2006 .

[7]  Roger Levy,et al.  A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input , 2008, EMNLP 2008.

[8]  R. Levy Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[9]  Daniel J. Acheson,et al.  The Rhymes that the Reader Perused Confused the Meaning: Phonological Effects during On-line Sentence Comprehension. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[10]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

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

[12]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[13]  F. Ferreira,et al.  The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: a psychometric approach. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited , 2003 .

[15]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  M. Pickering,et al.  An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

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

[18]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts , 2013, Cognition.

[19]  Matthew J. Traxler,et al.  Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding Language Science , 2011 .

[20]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The Interaction of Syntactic and Lexical Information Sources in Language Processing: The Case of the Noun-verb Ambiguity , 2012 .

[21]  Zenzi M. Griffin,et al.  Properties of Spoken Language Production , 2006 .

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

[23]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations , 2013 .

[25]  Nathaniel J. Smith,et al.  The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic , 2013, Cognition.

[26]  Marius Janciauskas,et al.  Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning , 2012, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[27]  P. Gordon,et al.  Memory interference during language processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension , 2014, Cognition.

[29]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[30]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Distributed Representations, Simple Recurrent Networks, and Grammatical Structure , 1991, Mach. Learn..

[31]  M. Pickering,et al.  Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1998 .

[32]  WILLIAM MARSLEN-WILSON,et al.  Linguistic Structure and Speech Shadowing at Very Short Latencies , 1973, Nature.

[33]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[35]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Priming in Sentence Processing: Intralexical Spreading Activation, Schemas, and Situation Models , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[36]  David J. Hess,et al.  Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension , 1995 .

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

[38]  C. Clifton,et al.  Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading , 2008, Memory & cognition.

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

[40]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[41]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[42]  John T. Hale,et al.  What a Rational Parser Would Do , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[43]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  P. Schwanenflugel,et al.  Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. , 1988 .

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

[46]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Out for a Smoke , 2010, Psychological science.

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

[48]  Wonil Choi,et al.  Word skipping during sentence reading: effects of lexicality on parafoveal processing , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[49]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye Movements During Mindless Reading , 2010, Psychological science.

[50]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Effects of plausibility on structural priming. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  J. Elman,et al.  Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. , 2012, Journal of memory and language.

[52]  WILLIAM MARSLEN-WILSON,et al.  Processing structure of sentence perception , 1975, Nature.

[53]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Ambiguity Resolution in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Frequency-Based Accounts , 2000 .

[54]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  Dissociating N400 Effects of Prediction from Association in Single-word Contexts , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[55]  P. Gordon,et al.  The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[56]  Aniruddh D. Patel,et al.  Structural integration in language and music: Evidence for a shared system , 2009, Memory & cognition.

[57]  Effects of sentence constraint on priming in natural language comprehension. , 2000 .

[58]  K. Rayner,et al.  The psychology of reading , 1989 .

[59]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Context Strengthens Initial Misinterpretations of Text , 2011 .

[60]  Leon Bergen,et al.  Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[61]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[62]  M J Pickering,et al.  Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: lexical information and verb-argument assignment. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[63]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[64]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Structural Priming Across Cognitive Domains , 2011, Psychological science.

[65]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies , 2003 .

[66]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension , 2011 .

[67]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience , 2013, Cognition.

[68]  Katherine A. DeLong,et al.  Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[69]  M. Traxler A Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis of Working Memory and Implicit Prosody in the Resolution of Adjunct Attachment Ambiguity , 2009, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

[71]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.