Rational models of comprehension : Addressing the performance paradox

A fundamental goal of psycholinguistic research is to understand the architectures and mechanisms that underlie language comprehension. Such an account entails an understanding of the representation and organization of linguistic knowledge in the mind and a theory of how that knowledge is used dynamically to recover the interpretation of the utterances we encounter. While research in theoretical and computational linguistics has demonstrated the tremendous complexities of language understanding, our intuitive experience of language is rather different. For the most part people understand the utterances they encounter effortlessly and accurately. In constructing models of how people comprehend language, we are thus presented with what we dub the performance paradox: How is it that people understand language so effectively given such complexity and ambiguity? In our pursuit and evaluation of new theories, we typically consider how well a particular model is able to account for observed results from the relevant range of controlled psycholinguistic experiments (empirical adequacy), and also the ability of the model to explain why the language comprehension system has the form and function it does (explanatory adequacy). Interestingly, research over the past twenty-five years has led to tremendous variety in proposals for parsing, disambiguation, and reanalysis mechanisms, many of which have been realized as computational models. However, while it is possible to classify models – e.g., according to whether they are modular, interactive, serial, parallel, or probabilistic – consensus at any concrete level has been largely

[1]  P. Frasconi,et al.  Learning first-pass structural attachment preferences with dynamic grammars and recursive neural networks , 2003, Cognition.

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

[3]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  The Modular Statistical Hypothesis: Exploring Lexical Category Ambiguity , 1999 .

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

[5]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules , 2001 .

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

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

[8]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Book Reviews: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing , 1999, CL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension , 2004 .

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

[17]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  Coping with Syntactic Ambiguity or How to Put the Block in the Box on the Table , 1982, CL.

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

[19]  J. Hayes Cognition and the development of language , 1970 .

[20]  A. Friederici Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  John R. Anderson Is human cognition adaptive? , 1991, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[22]  R. Weale Vision. A Computational Investigation Into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. David Marr , 1983 .

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

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

[25]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Modular architectures and statistical mechanisms: The case from lexical category disambiguation , 2002 .

[26]  Nick Chater,et al.  Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance , 1999 .

[27]  Thorsten Brants,et al.  Probabilistic Parsing and Psychological Plausibility , 2000, COLING.

[28]  Dan Jurafsky,et al.  Probabilistic Modeling in Psycholinguistics: Linguistic Comprehension and Production , 2006 .

[29]  M. Crocker Computational Psycholinguistics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Language , 1995 .

[30]  G. Kempen,et al.  Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar , 2000, Cognition.

[31]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Mechanisms for Sentence Processing , 1996 .

[32]  John Hale,et al.  The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[33]  Barry K. Rosen,et al.  Syntactic Complexity , 1974, Inf. Control..

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

[35]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: evidence from eye-movements in depicted events , 2005, Cognition.

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

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

[38]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation , 1994 .