Abstract
The strict competence hypothesis has sparked a small dialogue among several researchers attempting to understand its ramifications for human sentence processing and incremental interpretation in particular. In this paper, we review the dialogue, reconstructing the arguments in an attempt to make them more uniform and crisp, and provide our own analyses of certain of the issues that arise. We argue that strict competence, because it requires a synchronous computation mechanism, may actually lead to more complex, rather than simpler, models of incremental interpretation. Asynchronous computation, which is arguably both psychologically more plausible and conceptually more basic, allows for incremental interpretation to fall out naturally, without additional machinery for interpreting partial constituents. We show that this is true regardless of whether the presumed interpretation mechanism is top-down or bottom-up, contra previous conclusions in the literature, and propose a particular implementation of some of these ideas using a novel representation based on tree-adjoining grammars.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 129–144.
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with the context in human syntactic processing.Cognition, 30, 191–238.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.),Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Elman, J. L. (1988).Finding structure in time (Tech. Rep. No. 8801). San Diego: University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Center for Research in Language.
Frank, R. (1992).Syntactic locality and tree adjoining grammar: Grammatical, acquisition and processing perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.),Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-Language Understanding (pp. 291–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79 2554–2558.
Kroch, A. (1989). Asymmetries in long distance extraction in a TAG grammar. In M. Baltin & A. Kroch (Eds.),Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. (pp. 66–98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kroch, A., & Joshi, A. K. (1985).Linguistic relevance of tree adjoining grammars (Tech. Rep. MS-CIS-85-18). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science.
Lang, B. (1991). Towards a uniform formal framework for parsing. In M. Tomita (Ed.),Current issues in parsing technology (pp. 153–171). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Legendre, G., Yoshiro M., & Smolensky, P. (1990). Harmonic grammar-a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. InProceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 388–395.
May, R. (1985).Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). A General Framework for Parallel Distributed Processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing (pp. 45–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shieber, S., & Schabes, Y. (1990).Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki.
Shieber, S., & Schabes, Y. (1991). Generation and synchronous tree-adjoining grammars.Computational Intelligence, 4(7), 220–228.
Smolensky, P. (1986). Information processing in dynamical systems: Foundations of harmony theory. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group, (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing (chap. 6, pp. 194–281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stabler, E. P., Jr. (1991). Avoid the pedestrian's paradox. In R. C. Berwick, S. P. Abney, & C. Tenny (Eds.),Principle-based parsing: Computation and psycholinguistics. (pp. 199–237). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Steedman, M. (1989). Grammar, interpretation, and processing from the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),Lexical representation and process (chap. 16, pp. 463–504). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Steedman, M. (1992).Grammars and Processors (Tech. Rep. MS-CIS-92-52). University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science. To appear in H. Kamp & C. Rohrer, (Eds.),Current Theories in Natural Language Understanding. The Netherlands: Reidel.
Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 16(6), 683–692.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research in this paper was supported in part by grant IRI-9157996 from the National Science Foundation to the first author. The authors would like to thank Fernando Pereira, Edward Stabler, and Mark Steedman for discussions on the topic of this paper and for their comments on previous drafts.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shieber, S., Johnson, M. Variations on incremental interpretation. J Psycholinguist Res 22, 287–318 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067835
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067835