The use of verb-specific information for prediction in sentence processing

Recent research has shown that language comprehenders make predictions about upcoming linguistic information. These studies demonstrate that the processor not only analyses the input that it received but also predicts upcoming unseen elements. Two visual world experiments were conducted to examine the type of syntactic information this prediction process has access to. Experiment 1 examined whether the verb's subcategorisation information is used for predicting a direct object, by comparing transitive verbs (e.g., punish) to intransitive verbs (e.g., disagree). Experiment 2 examined whether verb frequency information is used for predicting a reduced relative clause by contrasting verbs that are infrequent in the past participle form (e.g., watch) with ones that are frequent in that form (e.g., record). Both experiments showed that comprehenders used lexically specific syntactic information to predict upcoming syntactic structure; this information can be used to avoid garden paths in certain cases, as Experiment 2 demonstrated.

[1]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Lexical Encoding of Event Participant Information , 1999, Brain and Language.

[2]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  The influence of recent scene events on spoken comprehension: Evidence from eye movements , 2007 .

[3]  Cheryl M. Beach,et al.  The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations☆ , 1991 .

[4]  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.

[5]  Marshall R. Mayberry,et al.  Learning to Attend: A Connectionist Model of Situated Language Comprehension , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Paul D. Allopenna,et al.  Tracking the Time Course of Spoken Word Recognition Using Eye Movements: Evidence for Continuous Mapping Models , 1998 .

[7]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[8]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[9]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  Lexical Functional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation , 2004 .

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

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

[12]  G. Altmann.  Cognitive models of speech processing , 1991 .

[13]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing , 2002, Vision Research.

[14]  L Konieczny,et al.  Locality and Parsing Complexity , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[15]  Stefan L. Frank,et al.  Surprisal-based comparison between a symbolic and a connectionist model of sentence processing , 2009 .

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

[17]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Exploring the architecture of the language-processing system , 1991 .

[18]  Frank Keller,et al.  A Computational Model of Prediction in Human Parsing: Unifying Locality and Surprisal Effects , 2009 .

[19]  L Frazier,et al.  Processing Coordinate Structures , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[20]  Douglas M. Bates,et al.  Linear mixed model implementation in lme4 , 2013 .

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

[22]  C. Clifton,et al.  Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either...or. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies , 2003 .

[24]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

[25]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense , 2004 .

[26]  Julie E. Boland.  Visual arguments , 2005, Cognition.

[27]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Filling Gaps On-Line: Use of Lexical and Semantic Information in Sentence Processing , 1991 .

[28]  L. Tyler,et al.  Local and Global Structure in Spoken Language Comprehension , 1987 .

[29]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  Donald Mitchell,et al.  Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. , 1987 .

[31]  Marcus Nyström,et al.  Semantic override of low-level features in image viewing - both initially and overall , 2008 .

[32]  Martin Corley,et al.  Timing accuracy of Web experiments: A case study using the WebExp software package , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[33]  Jelena Mirkovic,et al.  Incrementality and Prediction in Human Sentence Processing , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  J. Trueswell,et al.  The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language , 2004, Cognition.

[35]  J. Trueswell.  THE ROLE OF LEXICAL FREQUENCY IN SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION , 1996 .

[36]  Pia Knoeferle,et al.  Processing Parallel Structure: Evidence from Eye-Tracking and a Computational Model , 2007 .

[37]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[38]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Surface structure and interpretation , 1996, Linguistic inquiry.

[39]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[40]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[41]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Information in Predictive Processing: Cross-Linguistic Evidence from German and English , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

[43]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Psychology of Reading , 2012 .

[44]  Robert J Hartsuiker,et al.  Looking, language, and memory: bridging research from the visual world and visual search paradigms. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

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

[46]  M. Kutas,et al.  Anticipating Words and Their Gender: An Event-related Brain Potential Study of Semantic Integration, Gender Expectancy, and Gender Agreement in Spanish Sentence Reading , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

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

[49]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension , 2007, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[51]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  Comlex Syntax: Building a Computational Lexicon , 1994, COLING.

[52]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[54]  Frank Keller,et al.  Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination , 2010 .

[55]  Kristen M. Tooley,et al.  Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[56]  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.

[57]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Lexical Expectations in Sentence Comprehension. , 1984 .

[58]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus , 2008, Journal of Eye Movement Research.

[59]  G. Altmann,et al.  The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing , 2007 .

[60]  K. Boff,et al.  Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[62]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Circumscribing Referential Domains during Real-Time Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[63]  D. Barr.  Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression , 2008 .

[64]  S. Kennison.  Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence comprehension , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[65]  Katherine A. DeLong,et al.  Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

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