Sentence Processing Pt1

Question 1

Sentential Structure

Answer 1

In English: (S)ubject (V)erb (O)bject

• eg “the dogs chased the cats”
  NP (s)ubj (V) NP (o)bj

Question 2

Parsing

Answer 2

Dividing a sentence into its grammatical parts and analyzing their syntactic roles

• collection of structure-building mechanisms and procedures

           S
    ⟋           ⟍     NP                 VP The dogs      ⟋       ⟍
                V           NP
          chased    the cats

Question 3

Incremental Parsing

Answer 3

Incrementality: builds the sentential structure and the meaning as the words in the sentence unfold

Outcomes of incremental parsing are NOT always correct
- eg activation of onset competitors
- ham…
- hammer, hammock, hamstrings …

The system will have to suppress the incorrect interpretations

Question 4

Temporary Ambiguity: Written

Answer 4

Temporary ambiguity causes a brief misinterpretation of a sentence’s syntax

• eg “while Anna dressed the baby was in the crib”
• “while Anna dressed”
  subj verb
• “while Anna dressed the baby”
  subj verb obj
• “[while Anna dressed] [the baby was in the crib]”
  [subj verb] [subj verb obj]

Question 5

Relative Clause

Answer 5

A clause that modifies another noun
- example:

Ambiguity: “the general presented copies of the report was aware of the issue”

Relative clause: “the general who presented copies of the report was aware of the issue”
- who presented… modifies “the general”

Question 6

Reduced Relative Clause

Answer 6

A structure involving a relative clause where certain function words are omitted, thereby resulting in ambiguity

• “the general presented copies of the report was aware of the issue”
  
  • missing function word “who”

Question 7

Garden Path Sentences

Answer 7

Sentences that create a temporary ambiguity as they are incrementally processed

Disambiguating Region: the first point at which only the correct interpretation is consistent with the unfolding sentence

• eg “while Anna dressed the baby was in the crib”
  
  • processing difficulty (longer reaction time) often observed at the disambiguating region

Question 8

Parsing challenges: ambiguity

Answer 8

1) Temporary Ambiguity

2) Global Ambiguity

Question 9

Temporary Ambiguity: Spoken

Answer 9

Temporary ambiguity causes a brief misinterpretation of a sentence’s syntax

• eg. “Pick up the /bi/…“
  
  • /bi/ “beaker”
  • /bi/ “beetle”

Question 10

2) Global Ambiguity

Answer 10

Sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways/have more than one meaning depending on the groupings of words

Attachment Preferences
- eg: “the hooligan damaged the new shop with the fireworks”
- “with the fireworks” attached to:
- noun: “shop with the fireworks”
- verb: “damaged … with the fireworks”

Question 11

Examining processing difficulties

Answer 11

Self-Paced Reading Task:
A behavioural task intended to measure processing difficulty at various points in the sentence

• participants read through sentences one word or phrase at a time by pressing a key to advance through the sentence

Question 12

Self-Paced Reading Task EXAMPLE

Answer 12

(1)
(a) the hooligan (b) damaged (c) the new shop (d) with the (E) fireworks

(2)
(a) the hooligan (b) damaged (c) the new shop (d) with the (F) discounts

• analysis: sentences are divided into regions; reactions times measured for each region
• region of interest: (E)/(F)
• IF: longer reading times for (F) “discounts” in (2) than (E) “fireworks” in (1), we can conclude that people have more difficulty parsing the structure in (2) than in (1)

Question 13

Models of Ambiguity Resolution

Answer 13

1) Garden Path Theory

2) Constraint-Based Model

Question 14

1) Garden Path Theory

Answer 14

Frazier & Fodor (1978)
Two stages:
(a) initial analysis
- identify parts of speech
- parse hierarchical sentential structure
(b) reanalysis
- influence of other info (plausibility, context …)

Garden Path theorists suggest that when we parse linguistic information, we initially build the simplest analysis—one structure, one meaning only
- in English, SVO
- all other info sources later, prompting reanalysis
- avoids syntactic complexity
The parser is able to reserve cognitive resources by using simple structure-building heuristics

Question 15

Garden Path Theory EXAMPLE

Answer 15

Ex: “While Anna dressed the baby was in the crib”

Initial Structural Analysis:
- simplest analysis: SVO
- analyze “the baby” as the direct object

Reanalysis:
- “was” = disambiguating region—renders the simple analysis implausible
- use context and meaning at a later time to revise analysis
- “the baby” ≠ direct object
- “the baby = subject of next clause

Question 16

Garden Path Theory: Minimal Attachment

Answer 16

When more than one structure is licensed and consistent with the input, build the structure with the fewest nodes

Pre X-bar structures:
“While Anna dressed the baby
S
⟋ ⟍
Adv S
While ⟋ ⟍
NP VP
Anna ⟋ ⟍
V NP
dressed the baby

NOT:
S
⟋ ⟍
⟋ ⟍
S S
⟋ ⟍ ⟋ ⟍
Adv. S. NP VP
While ⟋ ⟍ the baby |
NP VP V
Anna | was
V
dressed

Question 17

2) Constraint-Based Model

Answer 17

MacDonald and colleagues (1994)
Constraint model theorists propose that upon presentation, all possible structures are activated at once
- different info sources (constraints) affect the parser’s decision, such as:
- semantic info
- contextual info
- frequency characteristics
- constraints are heavily biased to choose one interpretation over another
- not all structures lead to garden path effect

Question 18

Constraint-Based Model EXAMPLE

Answer 18

Ex: “the dog [walked to the park] wagged its tail happily”
- likely: main verb interpretation for “walked”
- less likely: reduced relative clause for “walked”

Ex: “the treasure [buried in the sand] was never found”
- likely: reduced relative clause for “buried”—there is NO garden path effect
- less likely: main verb interpretation for “buried”

Question 19

Factors affecting processing difficulty

Answer 19

1) Thematic Relations
2) Syntactic Frames of Verbs
3) Frequency-based Information
4) Context

Question 20

(1) Thematic Relations

Answer 20

Thematic Relations:
The number and roles of participants involved in an event (aka arguments in a sentence) eg:
- run: the runner (1 argument)
- bite: the biter; the bitee (2 arguments)
- send: the sender; the sendee; the item sent
(3 arguments)

Garden Path Theory (GPT): thematic relations CAN’T influence initial analysis

Constraint-Based Model (CBM): thematic relations CAN influence early decisions

Question 21

(1) Thematic Relations
SAME Research Results

Answer 21

UNAMBIGUOUS EXAMPLE
The florist sent the flowers — two possible analyses:
- (a) main verb analysis
The florist | sent | the flowers
SUBJ | MAIN V | OBJ
- (b) reduced relative clause
The florist | [sent the flowers]
SUBJ | [RELATIVE CLAUSE (modifier)]

Analysis: both GPT and CBM choose (a)
- GPT: SVO = most sensible structure analysis
- CBM: thematic relations of send:
- the item sent (“the flowers”)—requires that the subject is a person
- the sender (“the florist”) = a good fit for subject in main verb analysis

AMBIGUOUS EXAMPLE
The florist sent the flowers was aware…

Analysis: both GPT and CBM: show processing difficulty when ascribing to (a) main verb analysis
- both theories ascribe to main verb analysis and argue processing difficulties arise at “was”

Question 22

(1) Thematic Relations
DIFFERENT Research Results

Answer 22

DIFFERENT RESULTS:
Ex:The treasure buried in the sand — two possible analyses:

1) Garden Path Theory:
(a) main verb analysis
The treasure | buried | in the sand
SUBJ | MAIN V | LOCATION

GPT: ascribe to (a) main verb analysis (SVO; simplest analysis)

Constraint Based Model:
(b) reduced relative clause
The treasure | [buried in the sand]
SUBJ | [RELATIVE CLAUSE (modifier)]

CBM: ascribe to (b) reduced relative clause analysis; thematic relations of “bury”:
- the one who buries: NP “the treasure”= bad fit for subject in main verb analysis
- the item buried: NP “the treasure”= good fit for subject in relative clause

Research Results
The treasure buried in the sand was lost …

GPT: ascribe to main verb analysis
- show processing difficulty
CBM: ascribe to reduced relative clause
- NO processing difficulty
- most people adhere to CBM and are unsurprised by “was”, since thematic roles are considered early-on in parsing

Question 23

(2) Syntactic Frames

Answer 23

Syntactic Frames:
Templates that describe the kinds of syntactic elements a verb can take

Examples:
(1) fall
- no element required
- eg: The book fell.

(2) eat
- requires NP
- eg: The nurse ate [the sandwich].
- correct, but vague: The nurse ate

(3) put
- requires NP and PP
- eg: Rosa put [the parcel] [on the table].
- incorrect: Rosa put.

(4) say
- requires a sentential/clausal element
- Raj says [the report is incomplete].
- incorrect: Raj says.

Question 24

(2) Syntactic Frames
Syntactic Frame Ambiguity

Answer 24

AMBIGUITY: syntactic ambiguity depending on syntactic frame, creating a bias in parser’s expectations.

Less Bias: some verbs allow for more than one syntactic frame
(1) notice; NP
- Lin noticed [the answer]

(2) notice; Sentential element
- Lin noticed [the answer was incorrect]

More Bias: other verbs are more biased towards one syntactic frame over others (preference)
- NP-bias verbs (eg: accept, repeat, advocate…)

• S-bias verbs (eg. realize, decide, promise…)

Garden Path Theory:
According to GPT, syntactic frame biases CANNOT influence initial analysis

Constraint-Based Model:
According to CBM, syntactic frame biases CAN influence early decisions

Question 25

(2) Syntactic Frames
Research Results

Answer 25

Syntactic Frames Research
Completion Task (Trueswell et al., 1993)
- S-bias verb: “realize”

Lin realized the answer — two possible analyses:

• GPT adheres to (a) NP analysis
  Lin realized [the answer]
• CBM adheres to (b) S analysis
  Lin realized [the answer…]

Ex: Lin realized the answer was incorrect
- GPT: ascribe to NP analysis—show processing difficulty
- CBM: ascribe to S analysis—NO processing difficulty

Results for bias on syntactic frames of “realize”:
- NP-analysis 7%
- S-analysis 93%
- no processing difficulty for “was…”
- most participants placed their bets on the
correct frame bias—SUPPORTS CBM

Question 26

(3) Frequency

Answer 26

According to CBM, processing difficulties can be affected by the frequency of specific constructions

Ex: “Someone shot the maid of the actress who was standing on the balcony with her husband”

Q: who’s husband?
- the maid
(“…shot the maid…who was standing…with her husband”)
- the actress
(“the actress who was standing…with her husband”)

Question 27

(3) Frequency
Attachment Preferences

Answer 27

“Someone shot the maid of the actress who was standing on the balcony with her husband”
Q: who was standing with her husband?

Late Closure (GPT): attach the newly encountered phrase (“who was standing…”) to the most recently encountered info (“the actress”)
- GPT: simplest analysis; most recent phrase=less memory required
- tendency for English speakers (A: “the actress”)

Early Closure (CBM): attach newly encountered phrase (“who was standing…”) to the earlier info (“the maid”)
- CBM: analyze attachment depending on frequency-based info of attachment
- tendency for Spanish speakers (A: “the maid”)

Attachment Predictions: (for Spanish)
- GPT; Late Closure: show processing difficulty
- CBM; Early Closure: NO processing difficulty

Question 28

(3) Frequency
Active/Passive Voice

Answer 28

Active Voice Bias: eg entertain
- more likely: Hamlet entertained the guest
- less likely: Hamlet was entertained by the guest

Passive Voice Bias: eg accuse
- less likely: Hamlet accused the guest
- more likely: Hamlet was accused by the guest

GPT: frequency-based info CANNOT influence initial analysis
CBM: frequency-based info CAN influence early decisions

Question 29

(3) Frequency
Ambiguous Sentences

Answer 29

Ambiguous sentence: “The suspect accused…”; two analyses:

(a) main verb interpretation (GBT)
- The suspect accused
- SUBJECT MAIN V

(b) reduced relative clause interpretation (CBM)
- The suspect [accused … ]
- SUBJECT relative clause

Question 30

(3) Frequency
Ambiguous Sentences (Research)

Answer 30

Prediction: active voice is more associated with main verb analysis; passive voice is more associated with relative clause

Ambiguous Sentences (Research)
eg: “The suspect accused was released”

GPT: ascribe to main verb analysis → show processing difficulty
CBM: ascribe to reduced relative clause analysis → no processing difficulty

Question 31

(4) Context

Answer 31

Context: written, spoken, or visual information that forms the setting/fortifies the meaning of a linguistic phrase element
- helps build a mental image
- reduces ambiguity

GPT: context does NOT influence initial analysis
CBM: context DOES influence early decisions

Question 32

(4) Context
Linguistic (Written) Context

Answer 32

Linguistic Context
Target phrase: The horse raced past the barn fell

Context: “Farmer Bill and Farmer John were racing their horses through the field. Bill rode his horse along the fence, while John raced his horse past the barn. Suddenly, the horse raced past the barn fell”.
- context clarifies who is involved in the setting
- before target phrase, “raced” was used in a more passive way

Two analyses:
(a) main verb analysis
The horse raced …
SUBJ main V

• GPT: ascribe to main verb analysis → show processing difficulty

(b) reduced relative clause
The horse [raced …
SUBJ relative clause

• CBM: ascribe to reduced relative clause analysis → NO processing difficulty

Question 33

(4) Context
Visual Context/Early Eyetracking
(Tanenhaus et al. 1995)

Answer 33

Visual Context
Target Phrase: “Put the apple on the towel in the box”

(A) 🍎🧣 (B) 🧣
(C) ✏️ (D) 📦

Early Eyetracking Research (Tanenhaus et al. 1995)
- presented four objects:
(A) 🍎🧣 (B) 🧣
(C) ✏️ (D) 📦
- Q: how likely is it for listeners to look at the empty towel? (looking for garden path effects)
- eg: 🍎🧣 → 🧣 (X)

Question 34

(4) Context
Manipulation 1: Ambiguous/Unambiguous
(Tanenhaus el al. 1995)

Answer 34

Manipulation 1: ambiguous/unambiguous context

Ambiguous: “Put the apple on the towel in the box”
- expect more looks to empty towel
- eg: 🍎🧣 → 🧣 (X)

Unambiguous: “Put the apple that’s on the towel in the box”
- “that’s” clarifies the empty towel is not the final destination
- 🍎🧣 → 📦 (✓)

Question 35

(4) Context
Manipulation 2: one referent/two referents
(Tanenhaus el al. 1995)

Answer 35

Manipulation 2: one referent/two referent context
“Put the apple on the towel in the box”
Q: how likely is it for listeners to look at the empty towel depending on the context?

One referent: only one referent (apple) in the scene
(A) 🍎🧣 (B)🧣
(C) ✏️ (D) 📦
- less context; more likely to look at (B)🧣

Two referent: two referents (apples) in the scene
(A) 🍎🧣 (B)🧣
(C) 🍎 (D) 📦
- extra modifier (A) (adds context)—🍎🧣not 🍎
- less likely to look at (B)🧣

Question 36

(4) Context
One-referent gaze patterns; ambiguous/unambiguous

Answer 36

Ambiguous: “Put the apple on the towel in the box”
(A) 🍎🧣 (B) 🧣
(C) ✏️ (D) 📦

Gazes: start in middle, look to (A)🍎🧣, then to (B)🧣, back to (A)🍎🧣, then to (D)📦
- garden path effects at 1500ms

Unambiguous: “Put the apple that’s on the towel in the box”
(A) 🍎🧣 (B) 🧣
(C) ✏️ (D) 📦

Gazes: start in middle, look to (A)🍎🧣 then to (D)📦
- no garden path effects

Question 37

(4) Context
Two-referent gaze patterns; ambiguous/unambiguous

Answer 37

Ambiguous: “Put the apple on the towel in the box”
(A) 🍎🧣 (B) 🧣
(C) 🍎 (D) 📦

Unambiguous: “Put the apple that’s on the towel in the box”
(A) 🍎🧣 (B) 🧣
(C) 🍎 (D) 📦

Ambiguous and Unambiguous
Gazes: start in middle, look to (C)🍎, then to (A)🍎🧣, then to (D)📦
- no difference in eye gazes patterns between conditions
- no garden path effects (no looks to🧣)

Question 38

(4) Context
Summary of (Tanenhaus et al. 1995)

Answer 38

• Proportion of trials with eye movements to incorrect destination
• more looks to incorrect destination in one-referent ambiguous condition than two-referent ambiguous condition
• eye movements showed no evidence of garden path difficulty when the context is appropriate to the structure

Visual context helps clarify ambiguity, allowing processing earlier on in the sentence and reducing garden path effects