Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading

Syntactically ambiguous sentences are sometimes read faster than disambiguated strings. Models of parsing have explained this tendency by appealing either to a race in the construction of alternative structures or to reanalysis. However, it is also possible that readers of ambiguous sentences save time by strategically underspecifying interpretations of ambiguous attachments. In a self-paced reading study, participants viewed sentences with relative clauses that could attach to one of two sites. Type of question was also manipulated between participants in order to test whether goals can influence reading/parsing strategies. The experiment revealed an ambiguity advantage in reading times, but only when participants expected superficial comprehension questions. When participants expected queries about relative clause interpretation, disambiguating regions were inspected with more care, and the ambiguity advantage was attenuated. However, even when participants expected relative clause queries, question-answering times suggested underspecified representations of ambiguous relative clause attachments. The results support the construal and “good-enough” models of parsing.

[1]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[2]  J. L. Mistler-Lachman.  Levels of comprehension in processing of normal and ambiguous sentences , 1972 .

[3]  P. Hornby.  Surface structure and presupposition , 1974 .

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

[5]  J. Fodor,et al.  Semantic focus and sentence comprehension , 1979, Cognition.

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

[7]  A. Glenberg,et al.  The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension , 1982 .

[8]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  D-Theory: Talking about Talking about Trees , 1983, ACL.

[9]  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.

[10]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Race-Based Parsing and Syntactic Disambiguation , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  L. Reder,et al.  Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? , 1991 .

[12]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  The Use of Higher-Level Constraints in Monitoring for a Change in Speaker Demonstrates Functionally Distinct Levels of Representation in Discourse Comprehension. , 1991 .

[13]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Failures to Detect Contradictions in a Text: What Readers Believe versus what they Read , 1992 .

[14]  M. Singer,et al.  Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourse understanding. , 1992 .

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

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

[17]  L. Frazier,et al.  Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs , 1995, Cognition.

[18]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints , 1995, Cognition.

[20]  Patrick Sturt,et al.  Monotonic Syntactic Processing : A Cross-linguistic Study of Attachment and Reanalysis , 1996 .

[21]  Murray Singer,et al.  Constructing and Validating Motive Bridging Inferences , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Thematic Monotonicity , 1997 .

[23]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[25]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  The rational of analysis of inquiry: The case of parsing. , 1998 .

[26]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

[27]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[28]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Dynamical models of sentence processing , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[29]  T G Bever,et al.  Word-Monitoring Tasks Interact with Levels of Representation During Speech Comprehension , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[30]  N J Pearlmutter,et al.  Distinguishing Serial and Parallel Parsing , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[31]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Falsifying Serial and Parallel Parsing Models: Empirical Conundrums and An Overlooked Paradigm , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

[33]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  The Preservation of Structure in Language Comprehension: Is Reanalysis the Last Resort? , 2001 .

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

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

[36]  A. Sanford,et al.  Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Context, Attention and Depth of Processing During Interpretation , 2002 .

[38]  Nick Chater,et al.  Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior , 2003 .

[39]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  Eugene J. Dawydiak,et al.  Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm , 2004, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[41]  M. Pickering,et al.  Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. , 2005 .

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

[43]  Murray Singer,et al.  Verification of Text Ideas during Reading. , 2006 .

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

[45]  M. Traxler.  Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[46]  Robin L. Hill,et al.  Eye movements : a window on mind and brain , 2007 .

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