Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 129–144 | Cite as

A computational model of human parsing

  • Steven P. Abney
Article

Abstract

This report describeslicensing-structure parsing (LS-parsing), a computational model of human parsing. LS-parsing corresponds to human parsing at three points: (1) the order in which the LS parser builds nodes is psychologically more accurate than the orders in which either LL or LR parsers build nodes, (2) the LS parser's preferences in resolving local ambiguities are preferable to Frazier's strategies on both empirical and theoretical grounds, and (3) the backtracking strategies the parser uses when it has made an error at an earlier choice point model the distinction betweenweak andstrong garden paths-strong garden paths being irrecoverable, weak garden paths causing psychological difficulty, but not preventing recovery of the correct structure.

Keywords

Cognitive Psychology Computational Model Theoretical Ground Point Model Choice Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. (1987). Licensing and parsing.Proceedings of NELS 17, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  2. Aho, A.V., & Johnson, S.C. (1974). LR parsing.Computing Surveys, 6(2), 99–124.Google Scholar
  3. Aho, A.V., & Johnson, S.C. (1975). Deterministic parsing of ambiguous grammars.Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 18(8), 441–452.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1986).Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  5. Frazier, L. (1978).On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  6. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model.Cognition, 6, 291–325.Google Scholar
  7. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.Google Scholar
  8. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language.Cognition, 2, 15–47.Google Scholar
  9. Marcus, M. (1980).A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  10. Pereira, F.C.N. (1985). A new characterization of attachment preferences. In D. Dowty et al. (Eds.),Natural language parsing (pp. 307–319). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Shieber, S. (1983). Sentence disambiguation by a shift-reduce parsing technique. InProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 113–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven P. Abney
    • 1
  1. 1.Bell Communications ResearchMorristown

Personalised recommendations