Processing local and unbounded dependencies: A unified account

This paper proposes an account of incremental sentence processing and the initial stage of syntactic ambiguity resolution, based on the claim that the processor seeks to provide semantic interpretations for sentence fragments as soon as it possibly can. In this model, there is no fundamental distinction between local and unbounded dependencies. The processor employs a version of categorial grammar based on dependency grammar, in which dependency constituents are derived from dependencies between words and are permitted to overlap. The processor seeks to form dependency constituents as soon as it can, and to give interpretations to these fragments immediately. The initial stage of ambiguity resolution is determined by theprinciple of dependency formation, under which the processor automatically chooses an analysis that allows a single dependency constituent to be formed in preference to one that does not. The motivation is semantic: Such an analysis maximizes the amount of incremental interpretation that is possible. But if more than one analysis is compatible with the formation of a single constituent, the processor can appeal to a range of sources of nonsyntactic information in making its choice. I show how this account can capture a range of psycholinguistic evidence without positing any fundamental distinction between local and unbounded dependencies.

[1]  Bradley L. Pritchett Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance , 1992 .

[2]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Grammars and Processors , 1992 .

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

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

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

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

[7]  A. Garnham,et al.  Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context , 1992 .

[8]  H E Wanner,et al.  An ATN approach to comprehension , 1978 .

[9]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Sentence processing without empty categories , 1991 .

[10]  C. Reid,et al.  Parsing Complements: Comments on the Generality of the Principle of Minimal Attachment , 1989 .

[11]  Haim Gaifman,et al.  Dependency Systems and Phrase-Structure Systems , 1965, Inf. Control..

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

[13]  Merrill F. Garrett,et al.  Sentence processing , 1990 .

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

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

[16]  M. Pickering,et al.  Dependency categorial grammar and coordination , 1993 .

[17]  G. Hickok Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden-path sentences , 1993 .

[18]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Phrase Structure Grammar , 1982 .

[19]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1992,45A (1) 73-87 Prosodic Effects in Minimal Attachment , 2022 .

[20]  Richard Hudson,et al.  English word grammar , 1995 .

[21]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Linguistic Structure in Language Processing , 1988 .

[22]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[23]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Sentence processing with empty categories , 1993 .

[24]  W D Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Sentence Perception as an Interactive Parallel Process , 1975, Science.

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

[26]  Stephen Pulman,et al.  Grammars, parsers, and memory limitations , 1986 .

[27]  A. Weinberg Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal Commitment theory goes east , 1993 .

[28]  M J Pickering,et al.  Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: Evidence from semantic priming , 1993, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

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

[31]  Burgess Roland Curt Interaction of semantic, syntactic and visual factors in syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1991 .

[32]  Steven Abney,et al.  A computational model of human parsing , 1989 .

[33]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Syntactic structure and the garden path , 1987 .

[34]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure , 1980 .

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

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

[37]  D. G. Hays Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations , 1964 .

[38]  K. Rayner,et al.  Parsing Temporarily Ambiguous Complements , 1987 .

[39]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

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

[41]  Lucien Tesnière Éléments de syntaxe structurale , 1959 .

[42]  J. Henderson,et al.  Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences ☆ , 1991 .

[43]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Dependency and constituency in categorial grammar , 1992 .

[44]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps , 1987 .

[45]  Y. Bar-Hillel A Quasi-Arithmetical Notation for Syntactic Description , 1953 .

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

[47]  Cheryl M. Beach,et al.  The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations☆ , 1991 .

[48]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Variations on incremental interpretation , 1993, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

[49]  Bradley L. Pritchett Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing , 1988 .

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

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

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

[53]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Avoid the Pedestrian’s Paradox , 1991 .

[54]  C. Clifton,et al.  Comprehending Sentences with Long-Distance Dependencies , 1989 .

[55]  J. Lambek The Mathematics of Sentence Structure , 1958 .

[56]  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.

[57]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language , 1979 .

[58]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The On-Line Effects of Semantic Context on Syntactic Processing , 1977 .

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

[60]  Paul Gorrell,et al.  Evaluating the direct association hypothesis: A reply to pickering and barry (1991) , 1993 .

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

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

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

[64]  Nicholas Haddock,et al.  Computational models of incremental semantic interpretation , 1989 .

[65]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[66]  M. Moortgat Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus , 1988 .

[67]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Direct association and sentence processing: A reply to gorrell and to Gibson and Hickok , 1993 .

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

[69]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[70]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On the order of words , 1982 .

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

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

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