Processing the NP- versus S-Coordination Ambiguity: Thematic Information Does not Completely Eliminate Processing Difficulty

When faced with the NPversus S-coordination ambiguity as in, for example, The thief shot the jeweler and the cop ..., readers prefer the reading with NP-coordination (e.g., "The thief shot the jeweler and the cop yesterday") over one with two conjoined sentences (e.g., "The thief shot the jeweler and the cop panicked"). A corpus study is presented showing that NP-coordinations are produced far more often than S-coordinations, which in frequency-based accounts of parsing might be taken to explain the NP-coordination preference. However, frequency differences only become apparent when coarse-grained measures are considered. We also describe an eye tracking experiment investigating how temporarily ambiguous S-coordinated sentences are actually processed, and, more importantly, how information regarding thematic fit is used by the parser in this kind of structure. The S-coordinated sentences such as Jasper sanded the board and the carpenter laughed that were tested in the present experiment, were predicted to cause only minimal processing difficulty, if any, because of the poor thematic fit between carpenter and sanded arguing against NP-coordination. Our results indicate that information regarding poor thematic fit was used rapidly, but not without leaving some residual processing difficulty. This is compatible with claims that thematic information can reduce but not completely eliminate garden-path effects.

[1]  J. Mandler Language comprehension. , 1979, Science.

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

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

[4]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On not being led up the garden path : The use of context by the psychological syntax processor , 1985 .

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

[6]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

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

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

[9]  Barrett Katz,et al.  Binocular eye movement recording with CCD arrays , 1987 .

[10]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Linguistic Structure in Language Processing , 1988 .

[11]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. , 1989 .

[12]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[13]  A. Garnham,et al.  Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context , 1992 .

[14]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The syntactic positive shift (sps) as an erp measure of syntactic processing , 1993 .

[15]  M. H. Kelly,et al.  Word and World Order: Semantic, Phonological, and Metrical Determinants of Serial Position , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

[18]  K Rayner,et al.  Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression-contingent analyses , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Regression-contingent analyses: A reply to Altmann , 1994 .

[20]  Gerry T. M. Altmann,et al.  Regression-contingent analyses of eye movements during sentence processing: Reply to Rayner and Sereno , 1994 .

[21]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records , 1995 .

[22]  B. McElree,et al.  Syntactic and Thematic Processing in Sentence Comprehension: Evidence for a Temporal Dissociation , 1995 .

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

[24]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Modifier Attachment in Sentence Parsing: Evidence from Dutch , 1996 .

[25]  Weijia Ni,et al.  Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities , 1996 .

[26]  Todd R. Ferretti,et al.  Thematic Roles as Verb-specific Concepts , 1997 .

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

[28]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  Pragmatics in understanding what is said , 1997, Cognition.

[29]  Lars Konieczny,et al.  The Role of Lexical Heads in Parsing: Evidence from German , 1997 .

[30]  L Frazier,et al.  Construal: Overview, Motivation, and Some New Evidence , 1997, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[31]  Alan Garnham,et al.  Late Closure in Context , 1998 .

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

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

[34]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Lexical Processing during Saccadic Eye Movements , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[37]  Carson T. Schütze,et al.  Disambiguation Preferences in Noun Phrase Conjunction Do Not Mirror Corpus Frequency , 1999 .

[38]  G. Waters,et al.  Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[39]  John Hoeks,et al.  The processing of coordination: semantic and pragmatic constraints on ambiguity resolution , 1999 .

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

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

[42]  Reinier Cozijn Integration and inference in understandig causal sentences , 2000 .

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

[44]  Andrew Kehler,et al.  Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar , 2002, CSLI lecture notes series.

[45]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[46]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[47]  W. Vonk,et al.  On the treatment of saccades and regressions in eye movement measures of reading time , 2003 .

[48]  E. Kaan,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: a comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[49]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited , 2003 .

[50]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Coherence Relations, Ellipsis and Contrastive Topics , 2004, J. Semant..

[51]  John C J Hoeks,et al.  Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.