Speech processing and higher level sentence processing

Question 1

Allopenna, Magnuson & Tanenhaus (1998)
Eye tracking: Where do participants look as you are telling them
model predictions

Answer 1

The COHORT model would not predict any fixations on the speaker
The TRACE model does, and it even gets the timing right!

Question 2

what is parsing

Answer 2

generating a deep structure based on the surface structure (i.e. the words you have identified and the order in which they occurred).
In spoken language, prosodic cues may help.

Question 3

how does the parser work

Answer 3

The meaning of a sentence can only be fully understood after the syntax of a sentence is parsed

Question 4

what are the 4 parsing models

Answer 4

Garden-path model (Frazier & Rayner, 1982)
Constraint-satisfaction model (McDonald et al., 1994)
Unrestricted race model (van Gompel et al., 2000)
Good-enough processing (Ferreira et al., 2002)

Question 5

what is syntactic ambiguity

Answer 5

Garden path sentences

While Mary was mending the sock fell off her lap.
Temporarily ambiguous: Readers tend to think that “Mary was mending the sock” is one clause
At “fell off”, readers tend to:
Boggle and fixate for a long time
Regress back to earlier in the text
Read to end, and then start over again

Question 6

what is the Garden-path model (Frazier & Rayner, 1982)

Answer 6

Just one possibility is considered based on grammatical rules only, sentence has to be re-parsed if it’s wrong.

Question 7

what is the Constraint-satisfaction model (McDonald et al., 1994)

Answer 7

Multiple possibilities are considered, but they aren’t activated equally
Semantic properties and frequencies of verbs in syntactic structures are taken into account

Question 8

what is the Unrestricted race model (van Gompel et al., 2000)

Answer 8

Similar to garden-path model, but structures are considered based on both semantic and syntactic evidence

Question 9

what is the Good-enough processing model (Ferreira et al., 2002)

Answer 9

Compatible with any of the three above, but says that the result of parsing is not always well-elaborated or even correct

Question 10

how does the Garden path model deal with ambuguity

Answer 10

The parser chooses one preferred interpretation
Which interpretation is preferred depends on syntactic rules:
Minimal attachment
Late closure

Question 11

what is late closure

Answer 11

When possible, attach incoming lexical items into the clause or phrase currently being processed (i.e., the lowest possible nonterminal node dominating the last item analyzed).
Translation for non-linguists: While building your deep structure, don’t end a clause (e.g. the relative clause “Since Jay always jogs”) unless you really have to.

Question 12

what is minimal attachment

Answer 12

Attach incoming material into the phrase-marker being constructed using the fewest nodes consistent with the well-formedness rules of the language.
Translation for non-linguists: Build the tree with the fewest nodes that is grammatical

Question 13

strengths of garden path model

Answer 13

Fits a lot of evidence, e.g. from eye tracking
No evidence for the competing theories at the time:
Parallel parsing (all alternatives are considered at the same time)
Minimal commitment (the sentence structure isn’t built until you get to the end of the sentence)
A lot of the time, the principles of minimal attachment and late closure are applied even if they don’t make sense semantically:
e.g Readers take longer to read “After the child had sneezed the doctor prescribed a course of injections.”

Question 14

weakness of garden path model

Answer 14

Listeners shouldn’t take context into account
Spivey, Tanenhaus, Eberhard, & Sedivy (2002)
Task: Look at an array of objects while listening to sentences referring to those objects

Question 15

Spivey, Tanenhaus, Eberhard, & Sedivy (2002)

garden path model

Answer 15

Put the apple on the towel in the box.”
Listeners should first look at the apple (the referent) and then at the box (the goal).
If they attach “on the towel” incorrectly, they will interpret it as the goal and look at the towel instead of the box at first.

Question 16

results of Spivey, Tanenhaus, Eberhard, & Sedivy (2002)

Answer 16

Listeners take the context into account:
If there is only one referent (apple), they attach “on the towel” as the goal
Lots of looks at the towel
If there is more than one referent (one apple on a towel and one apple on a napkin) they attach “on the towel” to the referent
Very few looks at the towel

Question 17

what is the constraint satisfaction model

Answer 17

Connectionist model
The parser considers both semantic and syntactic information straight away
The most likely interpretation gets the most activation
But alternative interpretations cause inhibition and lower that activation
If the most likely interpretation fails, the resulting shift in activation takes some time to resolve

Question 18

what are the strengths of the constraint satisfaction model

Answer 18

Can explain the effect of semantic processing.
Some verbs are biased towards specific syntactic structures
“Read” is based towards a direct object:
A. The professor read the newspaper had been destroyed.
B. The professor read the newspaper during his break.
This makes B easier to understand than A
“Believe” is normally followed by a subordinate clause
C. The professor believed the newspaper had been destroyed.
D. The professor believed the newspaper.
This makes C easier to understand than A.

Question 19

Altmann & Kamide (1999)

Visual world paradigm eye tracking study

Answer 19

Where do people look while listening to a sentence?
Participants hear:
“The boy will move the cake” or
“The boy will eat the cake”
Eye tracking:
Will participants anticipate “cake” as a semantically appropriate object for “eat”?
Any of the objects are appropriate for the control verb “move”.

Question 20

weaknesses of constraint satisfaction model

Answer 20

Maybe too general in its predictions
Maybe a garden-path model with a very fast semantic processing step after the syntactic processing can account for the results as well.

Question 21

what is the unrestricted race model

van Gompel et al. (2000)

Answer 21

Unrestricted in terms of input:
Syntactic structure is built taking both syntactic and semantic information into account at the same time (like in the Constraint-Satisfaction model)
Initially, all interpretations are built in parallel (there is a race between the possible interpretations)
Once one interpretation wins the race, all other interpretations are ignored (like in the Garden-Path model; unlike in the Constraint-Satisfaction model)
If the preferred interpretation has to be abandoned, this will trigger an extensive reanalysis of the sentence (like in the Garden-Path model).

Question 22

Unrestriced Race Model: Evidence

van Gompel et al. (2001): Participants read three types of sentences:

Answer 22

A. Globally ambiguous sentences: The burglar stabbed only the guy with the dagger during the night.
Meaning is not constrained by semantics: Both verb-phrase attachment (the burglar uses the dagger) and noun-phrase attachment (the guy has the dagger) are plausible.
B. Verb-phrase attachment: The burglar stabbed only the dog with the dagger during the night.
Syntactically ambiguous but disambiguated by semantics: dogs don’t have daggers.
C. Noun-phrase attachment: The burglar stabbed only the dog with the collar during the night.
Syntactically ambiguous but disambiguated by semantics: you can’t use collars to stab.

Question 23

model predictions for van Gompel et al (2001)

Answer 23

Garden-path model:
All sentences are globally ambiguous syntactically, so they should take the same time to process
Constraint-satisfaction model:
In the sentences that are semantically constrained (B and C), it should be easier to choose the preferred interpretation, so they should be read faster than the unconstrained sentence (A)
Unrestricted race model:
Sentence A should be fastest since either of the two interpretations can be picked
Sentences B and C should be slower since people might occasionally have to re-analyse these sentences if they picked the wrong analysis initially

Question 24

why does van Gompel et al support the unrestricted race model

Answer 24

The evidence (from van Gompel et al., 2001) matches the predictions of the Unrestricted Race Model

Question 25

strengths of the unrestricted race model

Answer 25

Combines the best elements of the garden-path and the constraint-satisfaction model
Explains a lot of the experimental evidence so far

Question 26

weaknesses of the unrestricted race model

Answer 26

Relatively new, not all predictions have been tested yet.

Question 27

what is good enough processing

Answer 27

Sentences aren’t always parsed to the point where a fully-formed and correct interpretation is available
Processing just happens until the result is good enough to get on with the task at hand
Strategies for reducing working memory load include the use of heuristics (e.g. the noun that comes after a verb is usually the direct object of that verb)
Listeners and readers may adapt their processing strategy based on task demands.

Question 28

what is pragmatics

Answer 28

Pragmatics relates to the intended rather than the literal
Figurative language
Language not meant to be taken literally
Metaphor
A word or phrase used figuratively to mean something it resembles

Question 29

what is the 3 stages of the standard pragmatic model (Grice 1975)

Answer 29

literal meaning accessed
The reader or listener decides whether the literal meaning makes sense in the context it’s read or heard in
If it doesn’t, reader/ listener searches for a nonliteral meaning of the sentence that does make sense in context

Question 30

what is the cooperative principle (Grice 1975)

Answer 30

Participants in a conversation agree to cooperate, e.g.
Say things that are appropriate to the conversation
Don’t end the conversation unilaterally
Violations of this principle can be informative, too.

Question 31

violations of the cooperative principle

Answer 31

Be relevant”
Joe asks Sue “How was your day?”
Sue says “The train was late.”
Either Sue’s reply is irrelevant (non sequitur) OR
The train’s lateness is relevant to Sue’s day
“Be as informative as required—and no more“
Joe asks Sue “Where are the car keys?”
Sue says “Somewhere” OR
Sue says “See that blue couch over there with the dirty spot on the arm of it. If you go over there and look next to it there is a wooden side table. On the side table is a small green bowl with a bunch of stuff in it. The keys are one of the things in that bowl.”
“Tell the truth”
Joe asks Sue “Could you tell me what time it is?”
Sue says “No” (even though she is wearing a watch)
“Be clear”
Joe says to Sue “The project isn’t progressing very well, could you fix it?”
Joe doesn’t give Sue any useful suggestions.
Notice that all these violations carry an implicit (often aggressive) pragmatic meaning that is not contained in the sentence structure!

Question 32

Common Ground and the Egocentric Heuristic (grice 1975)

Answer 32

People generally conform to the cooperativeness principle:
Speakers and listeners work together to ensure mutual understanding by operating under shared knowledge and beliefs (common ground)
Listeners expect that speakers will mostly refer to information and knowledge in the common ground
Failure to do so can lead to miscommunication

Question 33

Common Ground and the Egocentric Heuristic Keysar et al 2000

Answer 33

argued that keeping on common ground can be effortful, instead:
Listeners use a rapid and non-effortful egocentric heuristic
Consider ungrounded objects from one’s own perspective as potential referents

Question 34

Common Ground and Egocentric Heuristic

progress

Answer 34

The distinction between common ground and egocentric heuristic accounts is oversimplified
General expectation for use of common ground and cooperativeness principle
May be better explained by an expectation of consistency
Processing limitations sometimes prevent listeners from focusing on only the common ground

Question 35

Common Ground and Egocentric Heuristic

limitations

Answer 35

Many experimental situations are highly artificial and not ecologically valid
Use of common ground is more likely with people we know well than strangers in the lab
Processing limitations may put a cap on use of common ground