Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus

The surprisal of a word on a probabilistic grammar constitutes a promising complexity metric for human sentence comprehension difficulty. Using two different grammar types, surprisal is shown to have an effect on fixation durations and regression probabilities in a sample of German readers’ eye movements, the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. A linear mixed-effects model was used to quantify the effect of surprisal while taking into account unigram frequency and bigram frequency (transitional probability), word length, and empirically-derived word predictability; the socalled “early” and “late” measures of processing difficulty both showed an effect of surprisal. Surprisal is also shown to have a small but statistically non-significant effect on empirically-derived predictability itself. This work thus demonstrates the importance of including parsing costs as a predictor of comprehension difficulty in models of reading, and suggests that a simple identification of syntactic parsing costs with early measures and late measures with durations of post-syntactic events may be difficult to uphold.

[1]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  AIC model selection using Akaike weights , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[3]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Inductive Dependency Parsing , 2006, Text, speech and language technology.

[4]  M. Coltheart Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading , 1987 .

[5]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The nite connectivity of linguistic structure , 1999 .

[6]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Glyn Morrill,et al.  Incremental processing and acceptability , 2000, CL.

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

[9]  D. Mitchell,et al.  Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution , 2006 .

[10]  Keith Hall,et al.  K-best Spanning Tree Parsing , 2007, ACL.

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

[12]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Coarse-to-Fine n-Best Parsing and MaxEnt Discriminative Reranking , 2005, ACL.

[13]  Wilson L. Taylor,et al.  “Cloze Procedure”: A New Tool for Measuring Readability , 1953 .

[14]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  Wolfgang Lezius,et al.  The TIGER language. - A Description Language for Syntax Graphs , 2000 .

[16]  Chris Brew,et al.  A Finite-State Model of Human Sentence Processing , 2006, ACL.

[17]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Processing Polarity: How the Ungrammatical Intrudes on the Grammatical , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[19]  K. Kraus,et al.  The DWDS corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20 century , 2006 .

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

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

[22]  Frank Keller,et al.  Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity , 2008, Cognition.

[23]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. , 2005, Psychological review.

[24]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Low-level predictive inference in reading: the influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements , 2003, Vision Research.

[25]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Argument-Head Distance and Processing Complexity: Explaining both Locality and Antilocality Effects , 2006 .

[26]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .

[27]  Wojciech Skut,et al.  An Annotation Scheme for Free Word Order Languages , 1997, ANLP.

[28]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Tracking the mind during reading: the influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[29]  David C. Plaut,et al.  A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production , 2002 .

[30]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Finitary models of language users , 1963 .

[31]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2006 .

[32]  K. Rayner,et al.  Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading , 1981 .

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

[34]  Alexis Nasr,et al.  Pseudo-Projectivity, A Polynomially Parsable Non-Projective Dependency Grammar , 1998, ACL.

[35]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  Augmented Transition Networks as Psychological Models of Sentence Comprehension , 1971, IJCAI.

[36]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading , 2004 .

[37]  Elizabeth Bates,et al.  Contextual effects on word production: A lifespan study , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[38]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements in reading: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[39]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements in reading words and sentences , 2007 .

[40]  John Hale,et al.  Uncertainty About the Rest of the Sentence , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  Albrecht W. Inhoff,et al.  Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose , 1984 .

[42]  Matthias Buch-Kromann,et al.  Dependency-based machine translation and parallel parsing without the projectivity and edge-factoring assumptions. A white paper , 2007 .

[43]  John Hale,et al.  A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a Psycholinguistic Model , 2001, NAACL.

[44]  Frank Keller,et al.  A Probabilistic Parser as a Model of Global Processing Difficulty , 2003 .

[45]  J. Hale,et al.  Garden-Pathing in a Statistical Dependency Parser , 2007 .

[46]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition , 2000 .

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

[48]  M W Crocker,et al.  Wide-Coverage Probabilistic Sentence Processing , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[49]  D. Bates,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS , 2001 .

[50]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  An Efficient Probabilistic Context-Free Parsing Algorithm that Computes Prefix Probabilities , 1994, CL.