File size: 80,226 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 | {
"paper_id": "P06-1007",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:25:06.612154Z"
},
"title": "A Finite-State Model of Human Sentence Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jihyun",
"middle": [],
"last": "Park",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "The Ohio State University Columbus",
"location": {
"region": "OH",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brew",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "The Ohio State University Columbus",
"location": {
"region": "OH",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "It has previously been assumed in the psycholinguistic literature that finite-state models of language are crucially limited in their explanatory power by the locality of the probability distribution and the narrow scope of information used by the model. We show that a simple computational model (a bigram part-of-speech tagger based on the design used by Corley and Crocker (2000)) makes correct predictions on processing difficulty observed in a wide range of empirical sentence processing data. We use two modes of evaluation: one that relies on comparison with a control sentence, paralleling practice in human studies; another that measures probability drop in the disambiguating region of the sentence. Both are surprisingly good indicators of the processing difficulty of garden-path sentences. The sentences tested are drawn from published sources and systematically explore five different types of ambiguity: previous studies have been narrower in scope and smaller in scale. We do not deny the limitations of finite-state models, but argue that our results show that their usefulness has been underestimated.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P06-1007",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "It has previously been assumed in the psycholinguistic literature that finite-state models of language are crucially limited in their explanatory power by the locality of the probability distribution and the narrow scope of information used by the model. We show that a simple computational model (a bigram part-of-speech tagger based on the design used by Corley and Crocker (2000)) makes correct predictions on processing difficulty observed in a wide range of empirical sentence processing data. We use two modes of evaluation: one that relies on comparison with a control sentence, paralleling practice in human studies; another that measures probability drop in the disambiguating region of the sentence. Both are surprisingly good indicators of the processing difficulty of garden-path sentences. The sentences tested are drawn from published sources and systematically explore five different types of ambiguity: previous studies have been narrower in scope and smaller in scale. We do not deny the limitations of finite-state models, but argue that our results show that their usefulness has been underestimated.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The main purpose of the current study is to investigate the extent to which a probabilistic part-ofspeech (POS) tagger can correctly model human sentence processing data. Syntactically ambiguous sentences have been studied in great depth in psycholinguistics because the pattern of ambiguity resolution provides a window onto the human sentence processing mechanism (HSPM). Prima facie it seems unlikely that such a tagger will be adequate, because almost all previous researchers have assumed, following standard linguistic theory, that a formally adequate account of recursive syntactic structure is an essential component of any model of the behaviour. In this study, we tested a bigram POS tagger on different types of structural ambiguities and (as a sanity check) to the well-known asymmetry of subject and object relative clause processing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Theoretically, the garden-path effect is defined as processing difficulty caused by reanalysis. Empirically, it is attested as comparatively slower reading time or longer eye fixation at a disambiguating region in an ambiguous sentence compared to its control sentences (Frazier and Rayner, 1982; Trueswell, 1996) . That is, the garden-path effect detected in many human studies, in fact, is measured through a \"comparative\" method.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 270,
"end": 296,
"text": "(Frazier and Rayner, 1982;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 313,
"text": "Trueswell, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This characteristic of the sentence processing research design is reconstructed in the current study using a probabilistic POS tagging system. Under the assumption that larger probability decrease indicates slower reading time, the test results suggest that the probabilistic POS tagging system can predict reading time penalties at the disambiguating region of garden-path sentences compared to that of non-garden-path sentences (i.e. control sentences). Corley and Crocker (2000) present a probabilistic model of lexical category disambiguation based on a bigram statistical POS tagger. Kim et al. (2002) suggest the feasibility of modeling human syntactic processing as lexical ambiguity resolution using a syntactic tagging system called Super-Tagger (Joshi and Srinivas, 1994; Bangalore and Joshi, 1999) . Probabilistic parsing techniques also have been used for sentence processing modeling (Jurafsky, 1996; Narayanan and Jurafsky, 2002; Hale, 2001; Crocker and Brants, 2000) . Jurafsky (1996) proposed a probabilistic model of HSPM using a parallel beam-search parsing technique based on the stochastic context-free grammar (SCFG) and subcategorization probabilities. Crocker and Brants (2000) used broad coverage statistical parsing techniques in their modeling of human syntactic parsing. Hale (2001) reported that a probabilistic Earley parser can make correct predictions of garden-path effects and the subject/object relative asymmetry. These previous studies have used small numbers of examples of, for example, the Reduced-relative clause ambiguity and the Direct-Object/Sentential-Complement ambiguity.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 456,
"end": 481,
"text": "Corley and Crocker (2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 589,
"end": 606,
"text": "Kim et al. (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 781,
"text": "(Joshi and Srinivas, 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 808,
"text": "Bangalore and Joshi, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 897,
"end": 913,
"text": "(Jurafsky, 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 914,
"end": 943,
"text": "Narayanan and Jurafsky, 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 944,
"end": 955,
"text": "Hale, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 981,
"text": "Crocker and Brants, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 984,
"end": 999,
"text": "Jurafsky (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 1175,
"end": 1200,
"text": "Crocker and Brants (2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 1298,
"end": 1309,
"text": "Hale (2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The current study is closest in spirit to a previous attempt to use the technology of partof-speech tagging (Corley and Crocker, 2000) . Among the computational models of the HSPM mentioned above, theirs is the simplest. They tested a statistical bigram POS tagger on lexically ambiguous sentences to investigate whether the POS tagger correctly predicted reading-time penalty. When a previously preferred POS sequence is less favored later, the tagger makes a repair. They claimed that the tagger's reanalysis can model the processing difficulty in human's disambiguating lexical categories when there exists a discrepancy between lexical bias and resolution.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 134,
"text": "(Corley and Crocker, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In the current study, Corley and Crocker's model is further tested on a wider range of so-called structural ambiguity types. A Hidden Markov Model POS tagger based on bigrams was used. We made our own implementation to be sure of getting as close as possible to the design of Corley and . Given a word string, w 0 , w 1 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , w n , the tagger calculates the probability of every possible tag path, t 0 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , t n . Under the Markov assumption, the joint probability of the given word sequence and each possible POS sequence can be approximated as a product of conditional probability and transition probability as shown in (1).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "(1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "P (w 0 , w 1 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , w n , t 0 , t 1 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , t n ) \u2248 \u03a0 n i=1 P (w i |t i ) \u2022 P (t i |t i\u22121 ), where n \u2265 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Using the Viterbi algorithm (Viterbi, 1967) , the tagger finds the most likely POS sequence for a given word string as shown in (2).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"text": "(Viterbi, 1967)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "(2) arg max",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "P (t 0 , t 1 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , t n |w 0 , w 1 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , w n , \u00b5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "This is known technology, see Manning and Sch\u00fctze (1999) , but the particular use we make of it is unusual. The tagger takes a word string as an input, outputs the most likely POS sequence and the final probability. Additionally, it presents accumulated probability at each word break and probability re-ranking, if any. Note that the running probability at the beginning of a sentence will be 1, and will keep decreasing at each word break since it is a product of conditional probabilities.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 56,
"text": "Manning and Sch\u00fctze (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "We tested the predictability of the model on empirical reading data with the probability decrease and the presence or absence of probability reranking. Adopting the standard experimental design used in human sentence processing studies, where word-by-word reading time or eye-fixation time is compared between an experimental sentence and its control sentence, this study compares probability at each word break between a pair of sentences. Comparatively faster or larger drop of probability is expected to be a good indicator of comparative processing difficulty. Probability reranking, which is a simplified model of the reanalysis process assumed in many human studies, is also tested as another indicator of garden-path effect. Given a word string, all the possible POS sequences compete with each other based on their probability. Probability re-ranking occurs when an initially dispreferred POS sub-sequence becomes the preferred candidate later in the parse, because it fits in better with later words.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The model parameters, P (w i |t i ) and P (t i |t i\u22121 ), are estimated from a small section (970,995 tokens,47,831 distinct words) of the British National Corpus (BNC), which is a 100 million-word collection of British English, both written and spoken, developed by Oxford University Press (Burnard, 1995) . The BNC was chosen for training the model because it is a POS-annotated corpus, which allows supervised training. In the implementation we use log probabilities to avoid underflow, and we report log probabilities in the sequel.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 290,
"end": 305,
"text": "(Burnard, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "If the HSPM is affected by frequency information, we can assume that it will be easier to process events with higher frequency or probability compared to those with lower frequency or probability. Under this general assumption, the overall difficulty of a sentence is expected to be measured or predicted by the mean size of probability decrease. That is, probability will drop faster in garden-path sentences than in control sentences (e.g. unambiguous sentences or ambiguous but non-gardenpath sentences).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hypotheses",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "More importantly, the probability decrease pattern at disambiguating regions will predict the trends in the reading time data. All other things being equal, we might expect a reading time penalty when the size of the probability decrease at the disambiguating region in garden-path sentences is greater compared to the control sentences. This is a simple and intuitive assumption that can be easily tested. We could have formed the sum over all possible POS sequences in association with the word strings, but for the present study we simply used the Viterbi path: justifying this because this is the best single-path approximation to the joint probability.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hypotheses",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Lastly, re-ranking of POS sequences is expected to predict reanalysis of lexical categories. This is because re-ranking in the tagger is parallel to reanalysis in human subjects, which is known to be cognitively costly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hypotheses",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In this study, five different types of ambiguity were tested including Lexical Category ambiguity, Reduced Relative ambiguity (RR ambiguity), Prepositional Phrase Attachment ambiguity (PP ambiguity), Direct-Object/Sentential-Complement ambiguity (DO/SC ambiguity), and Clausal Boundary ambiguity. The following are example sentences for each ambiguity type, shown with the ambiguous region italicized and the disambiguating region bolded. All of the example sentences are garden-path sentneces.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(3) Lexical Category ambiguity",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The foreman knows that the warehouse prices the beer very modestly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(4) RR ambiguity The horse raced past the barn fell.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(5) PP ambiguity Katie laid the dress on the floor onto the bed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(6) DO/SC ambiguity He forgot Pam needed a ride with him.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(7) Clausal Boundary ambiguity Though George kept on reading the story really bothered him.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "There are two types of control sentences: unambiguous sentences and ambiguous but non-gardenpath sentences as shown in the examples below. Again, the ambiguous region is italicized and the disambiguating region is bolded.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Materials",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The horse raced past the barn fell.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(8) Garden-Path Sentence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(9) Ambiguous but Non-Garden-Path Control The horse raced past the barn and fell.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(8) Garden-Path Sentence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(10) Unambiguous Control The horse that was raced past the barn fell.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(8) Garden-Path Sentence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Note that the garden-path sentence (8) and its ambiguous control sentence (9) share exactly the same word sequence except for the disambiguating region. This allows direct comparison of probability at the critical region (i.e. disambiguating region) between the two sentences. Test materials used in experimental studies are constructed in this way in order to control extraneous variables such as word frequency. We use these sentences in the same form as the experimentalists so we inherit their careful design.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(8) Garden-Path Sentence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this study, a total of 76 sentences were tested: 10 for lexical category ambiguity, 12 for RR ambiguity, 20 for PP ambiguity, 16 for DO/SC ambiguity, and 18 for clausal boundary ambiguity. This set of materials is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive yet subjected to this type of study. The sentences are directly adopted from various psycholinguistic studies (Frazier, 1978; Trueswell, 1996; Frazier and Clifton, 1996; Ferreira and Clifton, 1986; Ferreira and Henderson, 1986) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 369,
"end": 384,
"text": "(Frazier, 1978;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 401,
"text": "Trueswell, 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 428,
"text": "Frazier and Clifton, 1996;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 456,
"text": "Ferreira and Clifton, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 486,
"text": "Ferreira and Henderson, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(8) Garden-Path Sentence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As a baseline test case of the tagger, the well-established asymmetry between subject-and object-relative clauses was tested as shown in (11). The reading time advantage of subject-relative clauses over object-relative clauses is robust in English (Traxler et al., 2002) as well as other languages (Mak et al., 2002; Homes et al., 1981) . For this test, materials from Traxler et al. (2002) ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 248,
"end": 270,
"text": "(Traxler et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 316,
"text": "(Mak et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 336,
"text": "Homes et al., 1981)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 390,
"text": "Traxler et al. (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(8) Garden-Path Sentence",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Unambiguous sentences are usually longer than garden-path sentences. To compare sentences of different lengths, the joint probability of the whole sentence and tags was divided by the number of words in the sentence. The result showed that the average probability decrease was greater in garden-path sentences compared to their unambiguous control sentences. This indicates that garden-path sentences are more difficult than unambiguous sentences, which is consistent with empirical findings.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Probability Decrease per Word",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Probability decreased faster in object-relative sentences than in subject relatives as predicted. In the psycholinguistics literature, the comparative difficulty of object-relative clauses has been explained in terms of verbal working memory (King and Just, 1991) , distance between the gap and the filler (Bever and McElree, 1988) , or perspective shifting (MacWhinney, 1982) . However, the test results in this study provide a simpler account for the effect. That is, the comparative difficulty of an object-relative clause might be attributed to its less frequent POS sequence. This account is particularly convincing since each pair of sentences in the experiment share the exactly same set of words except their order.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 242,
"end": 263,
"text": "(King and Just, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 331,
"text": "(Bever and McElree, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 376,
"text": "(MacWhinney, 1982)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Probability Decrease per Word",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "A total of 30 pairs of a garden-path sentence and its ambiguous, non-garden-path control were tested for a comparison of the probability decrease at the disambiguating region. In 80% of the cases, the probability drops more sharply in garden-path sentences than in control sentences at the critical word. The test results are presented in (12) with the number of test sets for each ambiguous type and the number of cases where the model correctly predicted reading-time penalty of garden-path sentences. The two graphs in Figure 1 illustrate the comparison of probability decrease between a pair of sentence. The y-axis of both graphs in Figure 1 is log probability. The first graph compares the probability drop for the prepositional phrase (PP) attachment ambiguity (Katie put the dress on the floor and/onto the bed....) The empirical result for this type of ambiguity shows that reading time penalty is observed when the second PP, onto the bed, is introduced, and there is no such effect for the other sentence. Indeed, the sharper probability drop indicates that the additional PP is less likely, which makes a prediction of a comparative processing difficulty. The second graph exhibits the probability comparison for the DO/SC ambiguity. The verb forget is a DO-biased verb and thus processing difficulty is observed when it has a sentential complement. Again, this effect was replicated here.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 522,
"end": 530,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 646,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Probability Decrease at the Disambiguating Region",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The results showed that the disambiguating word given the previous context is more difficult in garden-path sentences compared to control sentences. There are two possible explanations for the processing difficulty. One is that the POS sequence of a garden-path sentence is less probable than that of its control sentence. The other account is that the disambiguating word in a garden-path sentence is a lower frequency word compared to that of its control sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Probability Decrease at the Disambiguating Region",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "For example, slower reading time was observed in (13a) and (14a) compared to (13b) and (14b) at the disambiguating region that is bolded. The log probability for each disambiguating word is given at the end of each sentence. As expected, the probability at the disambiguating region in (13a) and (14a) is lower than in (13b) and (14b) respectively. The disambiguating words in (13) have different POS's; Preposition in (13a) and Conjunction (13b). This suggests that the probabilities of different POS sequences can account for different reading time at the region. In (14), however, both disambiguating words are the same POS (i.e. Preposition) and the POS sequences for both sentences are identical. Instead, \"on\" and \"to\", have different frequencies and this information is reflected in the conditional probability P (word i |state). Therefore, the slower reading time in (14b) might be attributable to the lower frequency of the disambiguating word, \"to\" compared to \"on\".",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Probability Decrease at the Disambiguating Region",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The probability re-ranking reported in Corley and Crocker (2000) was replicated. The tagger successfully resolved the ambiguity by reanalysis when the ambiguous word was immediately followed by the disambiguating word (e.g. Without her he was lost.). If the disambiguating word did not immediately follow the ambiguous region, (e.g. Without her contributions would be very inadequate.) the ambiguity is sometimes incorrectly resolved. When revision occurred, probability dropped more sharply at the revision point and at the disambiguation region compared to the control sen- tences. When the ambiguity was not correctly resolved, the probability comparison correctly modeled the comparative difficulty of the garden-path sentences Of particular interest in this study is RR ambiguity resolution. The tagger predicted the processing difficulty of the RR ambiguity with probability re-ranking. That is, the tagger initially favors the main-verb interpretation for the ambiguous -ed form, and later it makes a repair when the ambiguity is resolved as a past-participle.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 64,
"text": "Corley and Crocker (2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Probability Re-ranking",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "In the first graph of Figure 2 , \"chased\" is resolved as a past participle also with a revision since the disambiguating word \"by\" is immediately following. When revision occurred, probability dropped more sharply at the revision point and at the disambiguation region compared to the control sentences. When the disambiguating word is not immediately followed by the ambiguous word as in the second graph of Figure 2 , the ambiguity was not resolved correctly, but the probababiltiy decrease at the disambiguating regions correctly predict that the garden-path sentence would be harder.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 30,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 417,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Probability Re-ranking",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "The RR ambiguity is often categorized as a syntactic ambiguity, but the results suggest that the ambiguity can be resolved locally and its processing difficulty can be detected by a finite state model. This suggests that we should be cautious in assuming that a structural explanation is needed for the RR ambiguity resolution, and it could be that similar cautions are in order for other ambiguities usually seen as syntactic.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Probability Re-ranking",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Although the probability re-ranking reported in the previous studies (Corley and Crocker, 2000; Frazier, 1978) is correctly replicated, the tagger sometimes made undesired revisions. For example, the tagger did not make a repair for the sentence The friend accepted by the man was very impressed (Trueswell, 1996) because accepted is biased as a past participle. This result is compatible with the findings of Trueswell (1996) . However, the bias towards past-participle produces a repair in the control sentence, which is unexpected. For the sentence, The friend accepted the man who was very impressed, the tagger showed a repair since it initially preferred a past-participle analysis for accepted and later it had to reanalyze. This is a limitation of our model, and does not match any previous empirical finding.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 95,
"text": "(Corley and Crocker, 2000;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 110,
"text": "Frazier, 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 313,
"text": "(Trueswell, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 426,
"text": "Trueswell (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Probability Re-ranking",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "The current study explores Corley and Crocker's model(2000) further on the model's account of human sentence processing data seen in empirical studies. Although there have been studies on a POS tagger evaluating it as a potential cognitive module of lexical category disambiguation, there has been little work that tests it as a modeling tool of syntactically ambiguous sentence processing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 59,
"text": "Corley and Crocker's model(2000)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The findings here suggest that a statistical POS tagging system is more informative than Crocker and Corley demonstrated. It has a predictive power of processing delay not only for lexically ambiguous sentences but also for structurally garden-pathed sentences. This model is attractive since it is computationally simpler and requires few statistical parameters. More importantly, it is clearly defined what predictions can be and cannot be made by this model. This allows systematic testability and refutability of the model unlike some other probabilistic frameworks. Also, the model training and testing is transparent and observable, and true probability rather than transformed weights are used, all of which makes it easy to understand the mechanism of the proposed model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Although the model we used in the current study is not a novelty, the current work largely differs from the previous study in its scope of data used and the interpretation of the model for human sentence processing. Corley and Crocker clearly state that their model is strictly limited to lexical ambiguity resolution, and their test of the model was bounded to the noun-verb ambiguity. However, the findings in the current study play out differently. The experiments conducted in this study are parallel to empirical studies with regard to the design of experimental method and the test material. The garden-path sentences used in this study are authentic, most of them are selected from the cited literature, not conveniently coined by the authors. The word-by-word probability comparison between garden-path sentences and their controls is parallel to the experimental design widely adopted in empirical studies in the form of regionby-region reading or eye-gaze time comparison. In the word-by-word probability comparison, the model is tested whether or not it correctly predicts the comparative processing difficulty at the garden-path region. Contrary to the major claim made in previous empirical studies, which is that the garden-path phenomena are either modeled by syntactic principles or by structural frequency, the findings here show that the same phenomena can be predicted without such structural information.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the work is neither a mere extended application of Corley and Crocker's work to a broader range of data, nor does it simply confirm earlier observations that finite state machines might accurately account for psycholinguistic results to some degree. The current study provides more concrete answers to what finite state machine is relevant to what kinds of processing difficulty and to what extent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Even though comparative analysis is a widely adopted research design in experimental studies, a sound scientific model should be independent of this comparative nature and should be able to make systematic predictions. Currently, probability re-ranking is one way to make systematic module-internal predictions about the garden-path effect. This brings up the issue of encoding more information in lexical entries and increasing ambiguity so that other ambiguity types also can be disambiguated in a similar way via lexical category disambiguation. This idea has been explored as one of the lexicalist approaches to sentence processing (Kim et al., 2002; Bangalore and Joshi, 1999) . Kim et al. (2002) suggest the feasibility of modeling structural analysis as lexical ambiguity resolution. They developed a connectionist neural network model of word recognition, which takes orthographic information, semantic information, and the previous two words as its input and outputs a SuperTag for the current word. A Su-perTag is an elementary syntactic tree, or simply a structural description composed of features like POS, the number of complements, category of each complement, and the position of complements. In their view, structural disambiguation is simply another type of lexical category disambiguation, i.e. SuperTag disambiguation. When applied to DO/SC ambiguous fragments, such as \"The economist decided ...\", their model showed a general bias toward the NP-complement structure. This NP-complement bias was overcome by lexical information from high-frequency S-biased verbs, meaning that if the S-biased verb was a high frequency word, it was correctly tagged, but if the verb had low frequency, then it was more likely to be tagged as NP-complement verb. This result is also reported in other constraint-based model studies (e.g. Juliano and Tanenhaus (1994) ), but the difference between the previous constraint-based studies and Kim et. al is that the result of the latter is based on training of the model on noisier data (sentences that were not tailored to the specific research purpose). The implementation of SuperTag advances the formal specification of the constraint-based lexicalist theory. However, the scope of their sentence processing model is limited to the DO/SC ambiguity, and the description of their model is not clear. In addition, their model is far beyond a simple statistical model: the interaction of different sources of information is not transparent. Nevertheless, Kim et al. (2002) provides a future direction for the current study and a starting point for considering what information should be included in the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 636,
"end": 654,
"text": "(Kim et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 681,
"text": "Bangalore and Joshi, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 701,
"text": "Kim et al. (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 1841,
"end": 1869,
"text": "Juliano and Tanenhaus (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 2504,
"end": 2521,
"text": "Kim et al. (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Future Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "The fundamental goal of the current research is to explore a model that takes the most restrictive position on the size of parameters until additional parameters are demanded by data. Equally important, the quality of architectural simplicity should be maintained. Among the different sources of information manipulated by Kim et. al., the socalled elementary structural information is considered as a reasonable and ideal parameter for ad-dition to the current model. The implementation and the evaluation of the model will be exactly the same as a statistical POS tagger provided with a large parsed corpus from which elementary trees can be extracted.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Future Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Our studies show that, at least for the sample of test materials that we culled from the standard literature, a statistical POS tagging system can predict processing difficulty in structurally ambiguous garden-path sentences. The statistical POS tagger was surprisingly effective in modeling sentence processing data, given the locality of the probability distribution. The findings in this study provide an alternative account for the garden-path effect observed in empirical studies, specifically, that the slower processing times associated with garden-path sentences are due in part to their relatively unlikely POS sequences in comparison with those of non-garden-path sentences and in part to differences in the emission probabilities that the tagger learns. One attractive future direction is to carry out simulations that compare the evolution of probabilities in the tagger with that in a theoretically more powerful model trained on the same data, such as an incremental statistical parser (Kim et al., 2002; Roark, 2001) . In so doing we can find the places where the prediction problem faced both by the HSPM and the machines that aspire to emulate it actually warrants the greater power of structurally sensitive models, using this knowledge to mine large corpora for future experiments with human subjects.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1000,
"end": 1018,
"text": "(Kim et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 1019,
"end": 1031,
"text": "Roark, 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "We have not necessarily cast doubt on the hypothesis that the HSPM makes crucial use of structural information, but we have demonstrated that much of the relevant behavior can be captured in a simple model. The 'structural' regularities that we observe are reasonably well encoded into this model. For purposes of initial real-time processing it could be that the HSPM is using a similar encoding of structural regularities into convenient probabilistic or neural form. It is as yet unclear what the final form of a cognitively accurate model along these lines would be, but it is clear from our study that it is worthwhile, for the sake of clarity and explicit testability, to consider models that are simpler and more precisely specified than those assumed by dominant theories of human sentence processing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This project was supported by the Cognitive Science Summer 2004 Research Award at the Ohio State University. We acknowledge support from NSF grant IIS 0347799.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Supertagging: an approach to almost parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bangalore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "25",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "237--266",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Bangalore and A. K. Joshi. Supertagging: an approach to almost parsing. Computational Lin- guistics, 25(2):237-266, 1999.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bever",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcelree",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Linguistic Inquiry",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "",
"pages": "35--43",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "G. Bever and B. McElree. Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:35-43, 1988.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Users Guide for the British National Corpus. British National Corpus Consortium",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Burnard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "L Burnard. Users Guide for the British National Corpus. British National Corpus Consortium, Oxford University Computing Service, 1995.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "The Modular Statistical Hypothesis: Exploring Lexical Category Ambiguity. Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Corley",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Crocker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Corley and M. W Crocker. The Modular Sta- tistical Hypothesis: Exploring Lexical Category Ambiguity. Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, M. Crocker, M. Picker- ing. and C. Charles (Eds.) Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2000.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Crocker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brants",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "W. C. Crocker and T. Brants. Wide-coverage prob- abilistic sentence processing, 2000.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "The independence of syntactic processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ferreira",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clifton",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Journal of Memory and Language",
"volume": "25",
"issue": "",
"pages": "348--368",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "F. Ferreira and C. Clifton. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25:348-368, 1986.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ferreira",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Henderson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Journal of Experimental Psychology",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "",
"pages": "555--568",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "F. Ferreira and J. Henderson. Use of verb infor- mation in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced read- ing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16: 555-568, 1986.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frazier",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "University of Massachusetts",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "L. Frazier. On comprehending sentences: Syntac- tic parsing strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1978.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frazier",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rayner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "Cognitive Psychology",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "",
"pages": "178--210",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "L. Frazier and K. Rayner. Making and correct- ing errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally am- biguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14: 178-210, 1982.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hale",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of NAACL-2001",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Hale. A probabilistic earley parser as a psy- cholinguistic model. Proceedings of NAACL- 2001, 2001.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Homes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "O'regan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Evensen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "",
"pages": "417--430",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Homes, J. O'Regan, and K.G. Evensen. Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20:417-430, 1981.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Disambiguation of super parts of speech (or supertags): almost parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Srinivas",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "The Proceedings of the 15th International Confer-ence on Computational Lingusitics (COLING \u2032 94)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "154--160",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. K. Joshi and B. Srinivas. Disambiguation of super parts of speech (or supertags): almost parsing. The Proceedings of the 15th Inter- national Confer-ence on Computational Lin- gusitics (COLING \u2032 94), pages 154-160, 1994.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "A constraintbased lexicalist account of the subject-object attachment preference",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Juliano",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Tanenhaus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Journal of Psycholinguistic Research",
"volume": "23",
"issue": "",
"pages": "459--471",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Juliano and M.K. Tanenhaus. A constraint- based lexicalist account of the subject-object at- tachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguis- tic Research, 23:459-471, 1994.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Cognitive Science",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "",
"pages": "137--194",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D Jurafsky. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20:137-194, 1996.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, computational and experimental issues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Kim",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bangalore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Trueswell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "109--135",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. E. Kim, Bangalore S., and J. Trueswell. A com- putational model of the grammatical aspects of word recognition as supertagging. paola merlo and suzanne stevenson (eds.). The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, computational and experimental issues, University of Geneva University of Toronto:109-135, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "King",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Just",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Journal of Memory and Language",
"volume": "30",
"issue": "",
"pages": "580--602",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. King and M. A. Just. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working mem- ory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30:580- 602, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Basic syntactic processes. Language acquisition; Syntax and semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Macwhinney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--136",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. MacWhinney. Basic syntactic processes. Lan- guage acquisition; Syntax and semantics, S. Kuczaj (Ed.), 1:73-136, 1982.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "The influence of animacy on relative clause processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vonk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schriefers",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Journal of Memory and Language",
"volume": "47",
"issue": "",
"pages": "50--68",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Mak, Vonk W., and H. Schriefers. The influ- ence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language,, 47:50-68, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch\u00fctze",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Manning and H. Sch\u00fctze. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "A bayesian model predicts human parse preference and reading times in sentence processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Narayanan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Narayanan and D Jurafsky. A bayesian model predicts human parse preference and reading times in sentence processing. Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Probabilistic top-down parsing and language modeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roark",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "27",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "249--276",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Roark. Probabilistic top-down parsing and lan- guage modeling. Computational Linguistics, 27 (2):249-276, 2001.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Traxler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Morris",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Seely",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Journal of Memory and Language",
"volume": "47",
"issue": "",
"pages": "69--90",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. J. Traxler, R. K. Morris, and R. E. Seely. Pro- cessing subject and object relative clauses: evi- dence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47:69-90, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Trueswell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Journal of Memory and Language",
"volume": "35",
"issue": "",
"pages": "556--585",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. C. Trueswell. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35:556-585, 1996.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Error bounds for convolution codes and an asymptotically optimal decoding algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Viterbi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1967,
"venue": "IEEE Transactions of Information Theory",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "260--269",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Viterbi. Error bounds for convolution codes and an asymptotically optimal decoding algorithm. IEEE Transactions of Information Theory, 13: 260-269, 1967.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"text": "(11) a. The editor who kicked the writer fired the entire staff. (Subject-relative) b. The editor who the writer kicked fired the entire staff. (Object-relative)",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "Ambiguity (10/10) c. RR Ambiguity (3/4) d. DO/SC Ambiguity (4/6) e. Clausal Boundary Ambiguity (3/6) Attachment Ambiguity Katie put the dress on the floor and / onto the ... Probability Transition (Garden-Path vs. Non Garden-Path)(a) \u2212 \u2022 \u2212 : Non-Garden-Path (Adjunct PP), \u2212 * \u2212 : Garden -Path (Complement PP) (b) \u2212 \u2022 \u2212 : Non-Garden-Path (DO-Biased, DO-Resolved), \u2212 * \u2212 : Garden-Path (DO-Biased, SC-Resolved)",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "Different POS at the Disambiguating Region a. Katie laid the dress on the floor onto (\u221257.80) the bed. b. Katie laid the dress on the floor after (\u221255.77) her mother yelled at her. (14) Same POS at the Disambiguating Region a. The umpire helped the child on (\u221242.77) third base. b. The umpire helped the child to (\u221242.23) third base.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"num": null,
"text": "Probability Transition in the RR Ambiguity (a) \u2212 \u2022 \u2212 : Non-Garden-Path (Past Tense Verb), \u2212 * \u2212 : Garden-Path (Past Participle) (b) \u2212 \u2022 \u2212 : Non-Garden-Path (Past Tense Verb), \u2212 * \u2212 : Garden-Path, (Past Participle)",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
}
}
}
} |