Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: digging-in effects.

Dynamical, self-organizing models of sentence processing predict "digging-in" effects: The more committed the parser becomes to a wrong syntactic choice, the harder it is to reanalyze. Experiment 1 replicates previous grammaticality judgment studies (F. Ferreira & J. M. Henderson, 1991b, 1993), revealing a deleterious effect of lengthening the ambiguous region of a garden-path sentence. The authors interpret this result as a digging-in effect. Experiment 2 finds a corresponding effect on reading times. Experiment 3 finds that making 2 wrong attachments is worse than making 1. Non-self-organizing models require multiple stipulations to predict both kinds of effects. The authors show that, under an appropriately formulated self-organizing account, both results stem from self-reinforcement of node and link activations, a feature that is needed independently. An implemented model is given.

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

[2]  J. Woolley,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[4]  Arnold L. Glass,et al.  Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences , 1987 .

[5]  J. Henderson,et al.  Chapter 12 How is Verb Information Used During Syntactic Parsing , 1991 .

[6]  Gregory B. Simpson,et al.  Understanding word and sentence , 1991 .

[7]  R. Schmid,et al.  Oculomotor Control and Cognitive Processes: Normal and Pathological Aspects , 1991 .

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

[9]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

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

[11]  Daniel Dominic Sleator,et al.  Parsing English with a Link Grammar , 1995, IWPT.

[12]  John M. Henderson,et al.  Reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis , 1993 .

[13]  Srinivas Bangalore,et al.  The Institute For Research In Cognitive Science Disambiguation of Super Parts of Speech ( or Supertags ) : Almost Parsing by Aravind , 1995 .

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

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

[16]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  The diagnosis and cure of garden paths , 1994 .

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

[18]  A. Inoue,et al.  Information-paced parsing of Japanese , 1995 .

[19]  J. Kevin O'Regan,et al.  A Challenge to Current Theories of Eye Movements in Reading. , 1995 .

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

[21]  Richard L. Lewis.  Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[22]  Gary E. Raney,et al.  Eye movement control in reading: a comparison of two types of models. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Frédéric Alexandre,et al.  Connectionist-Symbolic Integration: From Unified to Hybrid Approaches , 1996 .

[24]  R. Mazuka,et al.  Japanese Sentence Processing , 1996 .

[25]  Stephanie W. Haas.  Construal , 1996, Inf. Process. Manag..

[26]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Handbook of Formal Languages , 1997, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[27]  Suzanne Stevenson Paolo Merlo.  Lexical structure and parsing complexity , 1997 .

[28]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Parsing in a Dynamical System: An Attractor-based Account of the Interaction of Lexical and Structural Constraints in Sentence Processing , 1997 .

[29]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Tree-Adjoining Grammars , 1997, Handbook of Formal Languages.

[30]  E. Gibson,et al.  On the Strength of the Local Attachment Preference , 1997 .

[31]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence Reanalysis, and Visibility , 1998 .

[32]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  Parsing as Incremental Restructuring , 1998 .

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

[34]  John M. Henderson,et al.  Syntactic Reanalysis, Thematic Processing, and Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

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

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

[37]  Reading and Language Processing , 1998 .

[38]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Generalized Monotonicity for Reanalysis Models , 1998 .

[39]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling Thematic and Discourse Context Effects with a Multiple Constraints Approach: Implications for the Architecture of the Language Comprehension System , 1999 .

[40]  M. Pickering,et al.  Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing , 1999 .

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

[42]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Garden Path Re-Analysis: Attach (Anyway) and Revision as Last Resort , 2000 .

[43]  Y. Miyashita,et al.  Image, language, brain , 2000 .

[44]  E. Gibson.  The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

[45]  Albert Kim.  The grammatical aspects of word recognition , 2000 .

[46]  Ungrammatical Influences: Evidence for Dynamical Language Processing , 2000 .

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

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

[49]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  A computational model of the grammatical aspects of wordrecognition as supertagging , 2002 .

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

[51]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities , 2003 .

[52]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences , 2003 .

[53]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Working Memory in Sentence Comprehension: Processing Hindi Center Embeddings , 2003 .

[54]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, Computational, and Experimental Issues , 2002, Computational Linguistics.

[55]  J. Elman.  Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure , 1991, Machine Learning.