Abstract
The competitive attachment model of human parsing is a hybrid connectionist architecture consisting of a distributed feature passing method for establishing syntactic relations within the network, and a numeric competition mechanism for resolving ambiguities, which applies to all syntactic relations. Because the approach employs a uniform mechanism for establishing syntactic relations, and a single competition mechanism for disambiguation, the model can capture general behaviors of the human parser that hold across a range of syntactic constructions. In particular, attachment and binding relations are similarly processed and are therefore subject to the very same influences of disambuguation and processing over time. An important influence on the competitive disambiguation process is distance within the network. Decay of numeric activation, along with distributed feature passing through the network structure, has an unavoidable effect on the outcome of attachment and binding competitions. Inherent properties of the model thus lead to a principled explanation of recency effects in the human parsing of both attachment and filler/gap ambiguities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144.
Chalmers, D. (1992). Transformations on distributed representations. In N. Sharkey (Ed.),Connectionist natural language processing: Reading from Connection Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chomsky, N. (1981).Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1982).Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and bindin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Church, K. (1980).On memory limitations in natural language processing. Unpublished Masters thesis, MIT.
Crocker, M. (1992).A logical model of competence and performance in the human sentence processor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Frazier, L. (1978).On comprechending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connccticut.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.
Frazier, L. (1994).Sentence (re-)analysis. Talk presented at the Seventh Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Randall, J. (1983). Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension.Cognition, 13, 187–222.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model.Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting crrors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Gibson, E. (1991).A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University.
Gibson, E., & Hickok, G. (1993). Sentence processing with empty categories.Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 147–161.
Gibson, E., Hickok, G., & Schütze, C. (1994). Processing empty categories: A parallel approach.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 381–405.
Gorrell, P. (1987).Studies of human syntactic processing: Ranked-parallel versus serial models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Gorrell, P. (1994).Syntax and parsing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals.Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 223–261.
Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.
Jordens, P. (1991). Linguistic knowledge in second language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.),Point counterpoint: Universal grammar in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kempen, G., & Vosse, T. (1989). Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing.Connection Science, 1, 273–290.
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language.Cognition, 2, 15–47.
Lin, D. (1993). Principle-based parsing without overgeneration.Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 112–120.
MacDonald, M. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution.Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 157–201.
McClelland, J., & Kawamoto, A. (1986). Mechanisms of sentence processing: Assigning roles to constituents. In J. McClelland, D. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.).Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McRoy, S., & Hirst, G. (1990). Racc-based parsing and syntactic disambiguation.Cognitive Science, 14, 313–353.
Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories.Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.
Pritchett, B. (1992).Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rager, J., & Berg, G. (1992). A connectionist model of motion and government in Chomsky's government-binding theory. In N. Sharkey (Ed.),Connectionist natural language processing: Readings from Connection Science. Dordrecht. Kluwer.
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1987). Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 657–673.
Reggia, J. (1987). Properties of a competition-based activation mechanism in neuromimetic network models.Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Neural Networks, 131–138.
Rizzi, L. (1990).Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stevenson, S. (1993a) Establishing long-distance dependencies in a hybrid network model of human parsing.Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 982–987.
Stevenson, S. (1993b). A competition-based explanation of syntactic attachment preferences and garden path phenomena.Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 266–273.
Stevenson, S. (1994a). A competitive attachment model for resolving syntactic ambiguities in natural language parsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
Stevenson, S. (1994b). Empty categories in a hybrid network model of human sentence processing. Unpublished manuscript.
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location.Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 227–245.
Weinberg, A. (1991). A parsing theory for the nincties: Minimal commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stevenson, S. Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. J Psycholinguist Res 23, 295–322 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145044
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145044