Modeling garden path effects without explicit hierarchical syntax

The disambiguation of syntactically ambiguous sentences can lead to reading difficulty, often referred to as a garden path effect. The surprisal hypothesis suggests that this difficulty can be accounted for using word predictability. We tested this hypothesis using predictability estimates derived from two families of language models: grammar-based models, which explicitly encode the syntax of the language; and recurrent neural network (RNN) models, which do not. Both classes of models correctly predicted increased difficulty in ambiguous sentences compared to controls, suggesting that the syntactic representations induced by RNNs are sufficient for this purpose. At the same time, surprisal estimates derived from all models systematically underestimated the magnitude of the effect, and failed to predict the difference between easier (NP/S) and harder (NP/Z) ambiguities. This suggests that it may not be possible to reduce garden path effects to predictability.

[1]  Brian Roark,et al.  Probabilistic Top-Down Parsing and Language Modeling , 2001, CL.

[2]  Vered Argaman,et al.  Against Repair-Based Reanalysis in Sentence Comprehension , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[3]  Edouard Grave,et al.  Colorless Green Recurrent Networks Dream Hierarchically , 2018, NAACL.

[4]  Tal Linzen,et al.  Uncertainty and Expectation in Sentence Processing: Evidence From Subcategorization Distributions , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Brian Roark,et al.  Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing , 2009, EMNLP.

[6]  Adam Goodkind,et al.  Predictive power of word surprisal for reading times is a linear function of language model quality , 2018, CMCL.

[7]  Roger Levy,et al.  Memory and surprisal in human sentence comprehension , 2013 .

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

[9]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Long Short-Term Memory , 1997, Neural Computation.

[10]  William Schuler,et al.  Accurate Unbounded Dependency Recovery using Generalized Categorial Grammars , 2012, COLING.

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

[12]  William Schuler,et al.  A Model of Language Processing as Hierarchic Sequential Prediction , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[13]  J. Elman Distributed Representations, Simple Recurrent Networks, And Grammatical Structure , 1991 .

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

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

[16]  M. Pickering,et al.  Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension , 1999 .

[17]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Hierarchical and sequential processing of language , 2018, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience.

[18]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies , 2016, TACL.

[19]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  Reanalysis in sentence processing , 1998 .

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