Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 285–319 | Cite as

Learning To Parse?

  • Janet Dean Fodor


A strong claim about human sentence comprehension is that the processing mechanism is fully innate and applies differently to different languages only to the extent that their grammars differ. If so, there is hope for an explanatory project which attributes all parsing “strategies” to fundamental design characteristics of the parsing device. However, the whole explanatory program is in peril because of the discovery (Cuetos & Mitchell, 1988) that Late Closure is not universal: Spanish, and also Dutch and other languages, favor Early Closure (high attachment) where English favors Late Closure flow attachment). I argue that the universal parser can weather this storm. Exceptions to Late Closure in Spanish and other languages are observed only in one construction (a relative clause attaching into a complex noun phrase [NP]), which is borderline in English too. For other constructions, low attachment is preferred in all languages tested. I propose that what differentiates the complex NP construction is the heaviness of the attachee compared to that of the host configuration. A relative clause is a heavy attachee, and the lower NP alone is small as a host; the relative is therefore better balanced if the whole complex NP is its host. A wide range of facts is accounted for by the principle that a constituent likes to have a sister of its own size. Light constituents will tend to attach low, and heavy ones to attach high, since larger constituents are dominated by higher nodes. A preference for balanced weight is familiar from work on prosodic phrasing. I suggest, therefore, that prosodic processing occurs in parallel with syntactic processing (even in reading) and influences structural ambiguity resolution. Height of attachment ambiguities are resolved by the prosodically motivated same-size-sister constraint. The exceptional behavior of English may be due to its prosodic packaging of a relative pronoun with the adjacent noun, overriding the balance tendency. If this explanation is correct, it is possible that all cross-language variations in parsing preferences are due to cross-language variations in the prosodic component of the competence grammar.


Noun Phrase Relative Clause Ambiguity Resolution Sentence Comprehension Late Closure 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bachenko, J., & Fitzpatrick, E. (1990). A computational grammar of discourse-neutral prosodic phrasing in English. Computational Linguistics, 16, 155-170.Google Scholar
  2. Bader, M. (in press). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In F. Ferreira & J. D. Fodor (Eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Bever, T. G., Straub, K., Juliano, C., Shenkman, K., Kim, J., Carrithers, C., McElree, B., & Zamparelli, R. (1989 March). The integrated study of a selectional model of comprehension. Paper presented at the Second Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
  5. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996a). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 644-695.Google Scholar
  6. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996b, June). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Deciding between garden path, construal and statistical tuning accounts of parsing. Paper presented at the NIAS Workshop on Computational Models of Human Syntactic Processing, Wassenaar, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. II). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corley, M. M. B. (1996). The role of statistics in human sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.Google Scholar
  13. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., & Corley, M. M. B. (1996). In M. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1303-1321.Google Scholar
  16. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Fodor, J. D. (1980). Superstrategy. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Studies in psycholinguistics presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Fodor, J. D. (in press). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Google Scholar
  20. Fodor, J. D., & Frazier, L. (1980). Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition, 8, 417-459.Google Scholar
  21. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, I. (in press). Garden path reanalysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort. In M. De Vincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Proceedings of AMLaP-96, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  23. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (in press). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In F. Ferreira & J. D. Fodor (Eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  25. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 1-34.Google Scholar
  26. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1988). Parameterizing the language system: Left-vs. right-branching within and across languages. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Gee, P., & Grosjean, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 411-458.Google Scholar
  28. Gibson, E. A. F., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.Google Scholar
  29. Gibson, E., Schütze, C. T., & Salomon, P. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.Google Scholar
  30. Gilboy, E., & Sopena, J. M. (1996). Segmentation effects in the processing of complex NPs with relative clauses. In M. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J.-M., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.Google Scholar
  32. Grosjean, F., & Deschamps, A. (1975). Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l'anglais et du français: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d'hésitation. Phonetica, 31, 144-184.Google Scholar
  33. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1997, March). A principled model of modifier attachment. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (in press). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Holmes, V. M. (1995). A crosslinguistic comparison of the production of utterances in discourse. Cognition, 54, 169-207.Google Scholar
  37. Igoa, J. M. (1995, April). Parsing decisions and the construal hypothesis: Attachment preferences in primary phrases. Paper presented at the Second Symposium on Psycholinguistics, Tarragona, Spain.Google Scholar
  38. Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1997). Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 247-254.Google Scholar
  40. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing. Cognition, 2, 15-47.Google Scholar
  41. Kubozono, H. (1993). The organization of Japanese prosody. Tokyo, Japan: Kurusio.Google Scholar
  42. Langendoen, D. T. (1975). Finite-state parsing of phrase-structure languages and the status of readjustment rules in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 533-554.Google Scholar
  43. Mazuka, R., & Lust, B. (1990). Parameter setting and parsing: Predictions for crosslinguistic differences in adult and child processing. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Mitchell, D. C., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Challenges to recent theories of cross-linguistic variation in parsing. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mitchell, D., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing. Austin: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Texas.Google Scholar
  46. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.Google Scholar
  47. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., & Zagar, D. (1990). Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores D'Arcais, & R. K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Monnin, P., & Grosjean, F. (1993). Les structures de performance en français: Caractérisation et prédiction. L'Année Psychologique, 93, 9-30.Google Scholar
  49. Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163.Google Scholar
  50. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Selkirk, E. (1997). Constraints on prosodic phrasing and their relevance for right node raising. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  52. Wanner, E. (1980). The ATN and the sausage machine: Which one is baloney? Cognition, 8, 209-225.Google Scholar
  53. Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Dean Fodor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics, CUNY Graduate SchoolCity University of New YorkNew York

Personalised recommendations