Skip to main content
Log in

Predictive analysis vs. segmentational analysis in sentence perception

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three experiments involving ongoing sentence perception are described. A nonword detection (NWD) latency procedure was employed without a concurrent task (Experiment I), with a concurrent comprehension task (Experiment II), and with a concurrent recall task (Experiment III). Predictions were made based on two plausible models of sentence perception—predictive analysis (PA) and segmentational analysis (SA). Both characterize the hearer as actively imposing a grammatical structure on the input. PA constructs a surface structure representation sequentially (i.e., on a word-by-word basis). SA partitions off clauselike units before establishing the structure of smaller within-clause constitutents. The NWD latency data generally support a PA system (particularly when a concurrent task is used). The results of a nongrammatical condition in Experiment III confirmed that the general findings were not artifactual.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaronson, D. (1968). Temporal course of perception in an immediate recall task.J. Exp. Psychol.,76:129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaronson, D. (1976). Performance theories for sentence coding: Some qualitative observations.J. Exp. Psychol: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2:42–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, K. (1972). A further investigation into reaction time to pulses in speech. Paper delivered to the 84th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in Miami Beach, Fl.

  • Abrams, K., and Bever, T. G. (1969). Syntactical structure modifies attention during speech perception and recognition.Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 21:280–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, P. G., Smith, T. S., and Abrahamson, A. A. (1972). Two factors in perceptual segmentation of speech.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 11:164–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, R. A. (1973). Listening for mispronunciations: A measure of what we hear during speech.Percept. Psychophys. 13:153–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, C. (1974). Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon.Memory Cogn. 2:130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillenbaum, S. (1970). On the use of memorial techniques to assess syntactic structure.Psychol. Bull. 73:231–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1974). Is there a memory for sentences?Acta Psychol. 38:33–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., and Garrett, M. F. (1971). A donsolidation effect in sentence perception: Research Laboratory of Electronics, M.I.T..Q. Progr. Rep. 100:182–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., and Garrett, M. F. (1974).The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, D. J., and Jenkins, C. M. (1973). Some effects of context on the comprehension of ambiguous sentences.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 12:577–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, D. J., and Lynch, R. E. (1969). Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of surface structure on decision times.Percept. Psychophys. 4:145–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakes, D. T., and Foss, D. J. (1970). Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of surface structure reconsidered.Percept. Psychophys. 8:413–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockett, C. F. (1961). A grammar for the hearer. In Jakobson, R. (ed.),Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics Vol. 12, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, V. M., and Forster, K. I. (1970). Detection of extraneous signals during sentence recognition.Percept. Psychophys. 7:297–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyser, S. J., and Halle, M. (1968). What we do when we speak. In Kolers, P., and Eden, M. (eds.),Recognizing Patterns, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language.Cognition 2:15–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, J. (1975). Predictive analysis and over-the-top parsing. In Kimball, J. (ed.),Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IV, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingoes, J. C. (1973).The Guttman-Lingoes Nonmetric Program Series, Mathesis Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1973). Locating clicks in sentences: Left, centre, and right.Percept. Psychophys. 13:133–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S., and Anderson, J. R. (1970). The perception of clicks in linguistic and nonlinguistic messages.Percept. Psychophys. 8:81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. D. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse.Percept. Psychophys. 2:437–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitz, M. R., and Weber, E. A. (1974). Effects of response requirements on the location of clicks superimposed on sentences.Memory Cogn. 2:43–46.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whaley, C.P. Predictive analysis vs. segmentational analysis in sentence perception. J Psycholinguist Res 8, 523–542 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01071181

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01071181

Keywords

Navigation