Skip to main content

Generalized Monotonicity for Reanalysis Models

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 21))

Abstract

A common assumption in psycholinguistic theory is that reanalysis is constrained by a preference to preserve certain aspects of the representation built in response to previous input. In this chapter, we discuss this notion of representation-preservation in the wider context of models of reanalysis as a whole, and point out that in order to define a representation-preserving constraint on reanalysis, we must specify not only which aspects of representation should be preserved, but what is meant by the notion of preservation. We propose that the appropriate notion of preservation is that which is assumed in monotonic models of parsing, where structural relations between linguistic elements are updated totally non-destructively from state to state. Previous monotonic theories of parsing have limited themselves to consideration of phrase structure representations. In contrast, we propose a general framework within which one may formulate models which apply the same notion of preservation to other representation types. The framework is discussed with reference to a model which preserves thematic structure.

Much of the material in this chapter was presented at seminars given at the University of Freiburg, Germany, and the University of Torino, Italy, during July and September 1996. We would like to thank the seminar participants for their instructive comments, especially Barbara Hemforth, Lars Konieczny, Leonardo Lesmo, Vincenzo Lombardo, and Gerhard Strube. We would also like to thank Suzanne Stevenson and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions which have greatly improved the quality of this chapter. Any remaining errors are our own. The research reported here was supported by the award of ESRC studentship No. R00429334338 to the first author.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adams, B.C. 1995. A model for strategic reanalysis in sentence processing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M. 1996. On reanalysis: Evidence from German. Unpublished manuscript, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C. und Pullum, G.K. 1990. A theory of command relations. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 1, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C. (to appear). Evaluating models of human sentence processing. In M.W. Crocker, M.J. Pickering, und C.E. Clifton (eds.), Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C., Speer, S., und Abney, S.P. 1991. Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuetos, F. und Mitchell, D.C. 1988. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 72–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M. und Job, R. 1993. Some observations on the universality of the Late-Closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 2, 189–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M. und 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, 5, 1303–1321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F. und Henderson, J.M. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.D. und Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 4, 405–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.D. und Inoue, A. (this volume). Attach Anyway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. 1990a. Identifying structure under X°. Yearbook of Morphology, 3, 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. 1990b. Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the HPSM? In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d’Arcais, und K. Rayner (eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 303–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. und Clifton, C. 1996. Construal. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. und Clifton, C. (this volume). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. und Rayner, K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E.A.F. 1991. A Computational Theory of Human Linguistic Processing: Memory Limitations and Processing breakdown Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Available as Center for Machine Translation Technical Report CMU-CMT-91–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboy, E.A.F., Sopena, J.M., Clifton, C., und Frazier, L. 1995. Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, A. und Fodor, J.D. 1995. Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka und N. Nagai (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 9–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y. und Mitchell, D.C. 1997. Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 2, 247–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. 1993. An Architecturally-based Theory of Human Sentence Comprehension Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Available as Technical Report CMU-CS-93–226 from reports@cs.cmu.edu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardo, V. (this volume). A computational model of recovery.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., und Seidenberg, M.S. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 4, 676–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, M., Hindle, D., und Fleck, M. 1983. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21, 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W.D. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B.L. 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 3, 539–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B.L. 1992. Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Carlson, M., und 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M.J. 1991. Structure and intonation. Language, 67, 2, 260–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, S. 1994a. Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 4, 295–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, S. 1994b. A Competitive Attachment Model for Resolving Syntactic Ambiguities in Natural Language Parsing Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Available as Technical Report TR-18 from Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturt, P. (in preparation). Syntactic Reanalysis in Human Language Processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburghm, Edinburgh, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturt, P. und Crocker, M.W. 1996. Monotonic syntactic processingLa cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 5, 499–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturt, P. und Crocker, M.W. (to appear). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J.G., Tanenhaus, M.K. und Kello, C. 1993. Verb-specific constraints on sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical [reference from garden paths. Journal of experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 3, 528–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, R. 1972. Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. Rnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. und Glass, A.L. 1987. Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgements of garden path sentences Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714–738

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. 1993. Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal committment theory goes East. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 3, 339–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. 1995. Licensing constraints and the theory of language processing. In R. Mazuka und N. Nagai (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 235–255.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sturt, P., Crocker, M.W. (1998). Generalized Monotonicity for Reanalysis Models. In: Fodor, J.D., Ferreira, F. (eds) Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5037-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9070-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics