Effects of Surprisal and Locality on Danish Sentence Processing: An Eye-Tracking Investigation
An eye-tracking experiment in Danish investigates two dominant accounts of sentence processing: locality-based theories that predict a processing advantage for sentences where the distance between the major syntactic heads is minimized, and the surprisal theory which predicts that processing time increases with big changes in the relative entropy of possible parses, sometimes leading to anti-locality effects. We consider both lexicalised surprisal, expressed in conditional trigram probabilities, and syntactic surprisal expressed in the manipulation of the expectedness of the second NP in Danish constructions with two postverbal NP-objects. An eye-tracking experiment showed a clear advantage for local syntactic relations, with only a marginal effect of lexicalised surprisal and no effect of syntactic surprisal. We conclude that surprisal has a relatively marginal effect, which may be clearest for verbs in verb-final languages, while locality is a robust predictor of sentence processing.
KeywordsSentence processing Eye tracking Locality Surprisal theory Danish language
We are grateful to audiences at the 21st International Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing in Valletta, Malta in September 2015, and at the Center for Cognitive Science at the University of Kaiserslautern in January 2016, for comments on the research reported here. Also thanks to Ken Ramshøj Christensen for valuable discussion and to an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version 1.1-10). Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.
- Boston, M., Hale, J., Kliegl, R., Patil, U., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. The Mind Research Repository (Beta), (1). Retrieved from http://openscience.uni-leipzig.de/index.php/mr2/article/view/62.
- Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Riverside, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain papers from the first mind articulation project symposium (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gibson, E. (2003). Sentence comprehension, linguistic complexity in. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science. London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
- Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics on language technologies (pp. 1–8). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, J. A. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2), 223–261.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, J. A. (2011). Discontinuous dependencies in corpus selections: Particle verbs and their relevance for current issues in language processing. In E. M. Bender & J. E. Arnold (Eds.), Language from a cognitive perspective: Grammar, usage and processing (pp. 269–290). Cambridge, MA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
- Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
- Koehn, P. (2010). Statistical machine translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Konieczny, L., & Döring, P. (2003). Anticipation of clause-final heads: Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Proceedings of iccs/ascs.Google Scholar
- Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). Package “lmerTest” (Version 2.0-29). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
- Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.1.1). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
- Stolcke, A., Zheng, J., Wang, W., & Abrash, V. (2011). SRILM at sixteen: Update and outlook. In Proceedings of IEEE automatic speech recognition and understanding workshop (Vol. 5).Google Scholar
- Szmrecsanyi, B. (2004). On operationalizing syntactic complexity. Jadt-04, 2, 1032–1039.Google Scholar
- Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar