@phdthesis{Logačev2014,
  author    = {Logačev, Pavel},
  title     = {Underspecification and parallel processing in sentence comprehension},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-82047},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The aim of the present thesis is to answer the question to what degree the processes involved in sentence comprehension are sensitive to task demands. A central phenomenon in this regard is the so-called ambiguity advantage, which is the finding that ambiguous sentences can be easier to process than unambiguous sentences. This finding may appear counterintuitive, because more meanings should be associated with a higher computational effort. Currently, two theories exist that can explain this finding. The Unrestricted Race Model (URM) by van Gompel et al. (2001) assumes that several sentence interpretations are computed in parallel, whenever possible, and that the first interpretation to be computed is assigned to the sentence. Because the duration of each structure-building process varies from trial to trial, the parallelism in structure-building predicts that ambiguous sentences should be processed faster. This is because when two structures are permissible, the chances that some interpretation will be computed quickly are higher than when only one specific structure is permissible. Importantly, the URM is not sensitive to task demands such as the type of comprehension questions being asked. A radically different proposal is the strategic underspecification model by Swets et al. (2008). It assumes that readers do not attempt to resolve ambiguities unless it is absolutely necessary. In other words, they underspecify. According the strategic underspecification hypothesis, all attested replications of the ambiguity advantage are due to the fact that in those experiments, readers were not required to fully understand the sentence. In this thesis, these two models of the parser's actions at choice-points in the sentence are presented and evaluated. First, it is argued that the Swets et al.'s (2008) evidence against the URM and in favor of underspecification is inconclusive. Next, the precise predictions of the URM as well as the underspecification model are refined. Subsequently, a self-paced reading experiment involving the attachment of pre-nominal relative clauses in Turkish is presented, which provides evidence against strategical underspecification. A further experiment is presented which investigated relative clause attachment in German using the speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) paradigm. The experiment provides evidence against strategic underspecification and in favor of the URM. Furthermore the results of the experiment are used to argue that human sentence comprehension is fallible, and that theories of parsing should be able to account for that fact. Finally, a third experiment is presented, which provides evidence for the sensitivity to task demands in the treatment of ambiguities. Because this finding is incompatible with the URM, and because the strategic underspecification model has been ruled out, a new model of ambiguity resolution is proposed: the stochastic multiple-channel model of ambiguity resolution (SMCM). It is further shown that the quantitative predictions of the SMCM are in agreement with experimental data. In conclusion, it is argued that the human sentence comprehension system is parallel and fallible, and that it is sensitive to task-demands.},
  language  = {en}
}