Abstract
AbstractIn online language comprehension, the parser incrementally builds hierarchical syntactic structures. The predictive nature of this structure-building process has been the subject of extensive debate. A previous study observed that when a wh-phrase indicates parallelism between the upcoming wh-clause and a preceding clause (e.g.,John told some stories, but we couldn’t remember which stories…), the parser predictively constructs the wh-clause. This observation demonstrates predictive structure building. However, the study also suggests that the parser does not make a prediction when the wh-phrase indicates that parallelism does not hold (e.g.,John told some stories … with which stories…), a potential limit to the prediction of syntactic structures. Crucially, these findings are controversial because the study did not observe processing difficulty when disambiguating input indicated that the predicted continuation was inconsistent with the globally grammatical structure (garden-path effects). The controversial results may be due to a lack of statistical power. Therefore, the present study conducted a large-scale replication study (324 participants and 24 sets of materials). The results revealed that the parser predicts the clausal structure, irrespective of the type of wh-phrase. There was also evidence of garden-path effects, supporting the finding that the parser makes a prediction. These observations suggest that the prediction algorithm inherent in the human parser is more powerful than assumed by the previous study and that the parser attempts to construct globally grammatical structures during revision.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Universität Potsdam
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Cognitive Neuroscience,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,General Medicine
Reference83 articles.
1. Abney SP (1986) Licensing and parsing. North East Linguist Soc 17(1):1–15
2. Ackerman L, Kazanina N, Yoshida M (2015) Does the cataphoric dependency formation help the parser resolve local ambiguity? [Poster]. In: The 28th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of Southern California
3. Aho AV, Ullman JD (1972) The theory of parsing, translation, and compiling. Prentice-Hall
4. Altmann G, Steedman M (1988) Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30(3):191–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
5. Aoshima S, Phillips C, Weinberg A (2004) Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. J Mem Lang 51(1):23–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献