Advertisement

Head Position and Clause Boundary Effects in Reanalysis

  • Lars Konieczny
  • Barbara Hemforth
  • Christoph Scheepers
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 24)

Summary

Reanalysis cost has been demonstrated to be influenced by the distance of the semantic head of the ambiguous phrase to the disambiguating region (Ferreira and Henderson, 1991). F&H’s original account, based on the assumption of decaying activation levels of multiple thematic frames, as well as its recently updated version (Ferreira & Henderson, in press), will be discussed in the light of empirical evidence from an eye-tracking study on German NP- vs. elliptic VP-coordination ambiguities. Head position was varied by using pre-nominal APs and post-nominal PPs or RCs.

The results suggest that the head position, i.e. its distance from the disambiguating material, does in fact influence the strength of the garden-path effect. However, Ferreira and Henderson’s (1991) model of parallel thematic frame activation and decay fails to provide a straightforward explanation, since in the constructions investigated here, disambiguation does not (necessarily) coincide with the recovery of a recently abandoned thematic frame. Furthermore, the data also seem to be inconsistent with Ferreira and Henderson’s (in press) latest proposal based on the introduction of additional thematic processing domains in the cases of PPs and RCs, but not in APs. In general, the results constrain the class of potential (de-)activation-based models such as Ferreira and Henderson’s (1991) and Stevenson’s (1993), and provide important insights in how these models have to be revised to be compatible with the empirical findings. We also offer an alternative explanation based on the amount of semantic unpacking required for re-interpretation.

Keywords

Reading Time Head Position Modifier Type Relative Clause Syntactic Complexity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. (1987). Licensing and parsing. Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the NELS, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20 (3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altmann, G. T., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berwick, R. C., & Weinberg, A. S. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Branigan, H. (1995). Language processing and the mental representation of syntactic structure. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  7. Brysbaert, M. (1994). Sentence reading: do we make use of non-audible cues. Paper presented at the 4th Workshop on Language Comprehension, Giens, 13–14 May.Google Scholar
  8. Caplan, D. (1972). Clause boundaries and recognition latencies for words in sentences. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hove/London/Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frazier, L., & Flores d’Arcais, G. (1989). Filler driven parsing: a study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: a two stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, E. (in press). Memory limitations and linguistic processing breakdown. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
  17. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1994). On Reanalysis: Head position and syntactic complexity. In B. Hemforth, L. Konieczny, C. Scheepers & G. Strube (Eds.), First analysis, reanalysis and repair. (IIG-Berichte 8/94) (pp. 23–50). Freiburg: University of Freiburg, Institute for Computer Science and Social Research.Google Scholar
  18. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Strube, G. (1993). Incremental syntax processing and parsing strategies. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 539–545.Google Scholar
  19. Hörmann, H. (1976). Meinen und Verstehen. Grundzüge einer psychologischen Semantik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  20. Jarvella, R. J. (1979). Immediate memory and discourse processing. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy, A., Murray, W. S., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konieczny, L. (1996). Human sentence processing: a semantics-oriented parsing approach (IIG-Berichte 3/96). Freiburg: University of Freiburg, Institute for Computer Science and Social Research.Google Scholar
  23. Konieczny, L. (in prep.). Eye-movement data analysis with Eye2Mind (IIG-Bericht). Freiburg: University of Freiburg, Institute for Computer Science and Social Research.Google Scholar
  24. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., & Scheepers, C. (1994). Reanalysis vs. internal repairs: Nonmonotonic processes in sentence perception. In B. Hemforth, L. Konieczny, C. Scheepers & G. Strube (Eds.), First Analysis, reanalysis, and repair (IIG-Berichte 8/94) (pp. 1–23). Freiburg: University of Freiburg, Institute for Computer Science and Social Research.Google Scholar
  25. Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Hemforth, B. & Strube, G. (1994). Semantikorientierte Syntaxverarbeitung. In S. Felix, C. Habel & G. Rickheit (Eds.), Kognitive Linguistik: Repräsentationen und Prozesse. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and cognitive processes, 2–3.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, R. (1993). An architecturally-based theory of human sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  28. Liversedge, S. (1994). Referential contexts, relative clauses, and syntactic parsing. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Dundee.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, D. C. (1989). Verb-guidance and other lexical effects in parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pritchett, B. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rayner, K., Sereno S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheepers, C. (1996). Menschliche Satzverarbeitung: Syntaktische und thematische Aspekte der Wortstellung im Deutschen. Freiburg: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  34. Stevenson, S. (1993). A constrained active attachment model for resolving syntactic ambiguities in natural language parsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  35. Strube, G., Hemforth, B., & Wrobel, H. (1990). Resolution of structural ambiguities in sentence comprehension: On-line analysis of syntactic, lexical, and semantic effects. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 558–565). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Warner, J., & Glass, A. L. (1987). Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticallity judgments of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Konieczny
    • 1
  • Barbara Hemforth
    • 1
  • Christoph Scheepers
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations