Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing

Various problems with the constraint satisfaction model are discussed. It is argued that the empirical evidence presented in support of the model does not concern predictions of the model that diverge from those of depth-first (one analysis at a time) models. Several methodological problems are also noted. As a theory of sentence processing, the model is inadequate. It fails to account for the assignment of local structure, global structure, structure involving discontinuous dependencies, long-distance dependencies, and adjunct phrases. It makes incorrect predictions about the timing of syntactic analysis. Further, because syntactic structure is available only through activation of syntactic projections stored in the lexical entry of words, the model leaves entirely unexplained the myriad psycholinguistic findings demonstrating independence of lexical and syntactic structure (in Event Related Potential studies, code-switching, pure syntactic priming, etc). Finally, the model is not restrictive or explanatory, providing an account that largely consists ofpost hoc correlations between frequency counts or subjects ratings of sentences and processing time data for the same sentences.

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

[2]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser , 1989 .

[3]  Shelia M. Kennison,et al.  The role of verb-specific lexical information in syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1995 .

[4]  L. Frazier,et al.  Processing discontinuous words: On the interface between lexical and syntactic processing , 1993, Cognition.

[5]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[6]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly , 1992 .

[7]  Susan A. Duffy,et al.  EYE MOVEMENTS AND LEXICAL AMBIGUITY , 1987 .

[8]  S R Speer,et al.  The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[9]  M. Garrett,et al.  Lexical decision in sentences: Effects of syntactic structure , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Marica de Vincenzi,et al.  Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian , 1991 .

[11]  L. Frazier,et al.  Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in dutch , 1989 .

[12]  D. Swinney,et al.  An On-Line Analysis of Syntactic Processing in Broca′s and Wernicke′s Aphasia , 1993, Brain and Language.

[13]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading , 1988 .

[14]  P. Tabossi,et al.  Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance , 1987 .

[15]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences , 1983 .

[16]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Closed-class immanence in sentence production , 1989, Cognition.

[17]  Gary F. Marcus,et al.  German Inflection: The Exception That Proves the Rule , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[19]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[20]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Syntactic processing: Evidence from dutch , 1987 .

[21]  W. Epstein The influence of syntactical structure of learning. , 1961, The American journal of psychology.

[22]  Stephen Crain,et al.  How to Resolve Structural Ambiguities , 1990 .

[23]  M. MacDonald,et al.  Individual Differences and Probabilistic Constraints in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1995 .

[24]  K. Rayner,et al.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  Paola Merlo,et al.  A corpus-based analysis of verb continuation frequencies for syntactic processing , 1994 .

[26]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Constituent Attachment and Thematic Role Assignment in Sentence Processing: Influences of Content-Based Expectations , 1988 .

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

[28]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The temporal structure of spoken language understanding , 1980, Cognition.

[29]  K. Forster,et al.  Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis , 1973 .

[30]  Steven P. Abney,et al.  Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. , 1991 .

[31]  D. Swinney Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[32]  Stephen Dopkins,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1992 .

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

[34]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. , 1985 .

[35]  Marie Bienkowski,et al.  Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[37]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  The Processing of Locally Ambiguous Relative Clauses in German , 1995 .