Abstract
Following from the initial work of description theory (Marcus, Hindle, & Fleck, 1983), monotonic models of sentence processing seek to isolate representation types which can tolerate certain classes of structural revision through totally nondestructive update. In this paper we argue that, due to the concentration of existing monotonic models on constituent structure, these models lack the flexibility to combine word-by-word incremental processing with the necessary range of revisions. To solve these problems, we propose that, rather than dismissing monotonicity as a framework, the relevant constraints should be defined over thematic structure as opposed to constituent structure, thus allowing a more flexible processing system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bader, M. (1996). On reanalysis: Evidence from German. Unpublished manuscript, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
Branigan, H., Sturt, P., & Matsumoto-Sturt, Y. (1996, September). Left branching attachment and thematic domains. Poster presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference, Torino, Italy.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crocker, M. W. (1995). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 72–105.
De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189–206.
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.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 405–432.
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the HPSM? In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Ed.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303–331). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, Jr, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167.
Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1995, December). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference, Edinburgh.
Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1997). Relative caluse attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 247–254.
Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 129–136). Cambridge, MA.
Mitchell, D. C., Corley, M. M. B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 69–88.
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA and Chicago: CSLI and University of Chicago Press.
Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539–576.
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.
Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (in press). Generalized monotonicity for reanalysis models. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: a cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449–494.
Weinberg, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes East. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 339–364.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sturt, P., Crocker, M.W. Thematic Monotonicity. J Psycholinguist Res 26, 297–322 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025076608204
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025076608204