Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Document Type
Language
- English (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6) (remove)
Keywords
- Psycholinguistik (6) (remove)
Institute
- Department Linguistik (6) (remove)
The aim of this dissertation was to conduct a larger-scale cross-linguistic empirical investigation of similarity-based interference effects in sentence comprehension.
Interference studies can offer valuable insights into the mechanisms that are involved in long-distance dependency completion.
Many studies have investigated similarity-based interference effects, showing that syntactic and semantic information are employed during long-distance dependency formation (e.g., Arnett & Wagers, 2017; Cunnings & Sturt, 2018; Van Dyke, 2007, Van Dyke & Lewis, 2003; Van Dyke & McElree, 2011). Nevertheless, there are some important open questions in the interference literature that are critical to our understanding of the constraints involved in dependency resolution.
The first research question concerns the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in online sentence comprehension. Only few interference studies have investigated this question, and, to date, there is not enough data to draw conclusions with regard to their time course (Van Dyke, 2007; Van Dyke & McElree, 2011).
Our first cross-linguistic study explores the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in two eye-tracking reading experiments that implement the study design used in Van Dyke (2007). The first experiment tests English sentences. The second, larger-sample experiment investigates the two interference types in German.
Overall, the data suggest that syntactic and semantic interference can arise simultaneously during retrieval.
The second research question concerns a special case of semantic interference: We investigate whether cue-based retrieval interference can be caused by semantically similar items which are not embedded in a syntactic structure.
This second interference study builds on a landmark study by Van Dyke & McElree (2006). The study design used in their study is unique in that it is able to pin down the source of interference as a consequence of cue overload during retrieval, when semantic retrieval cues do not uniquely match the retrieval target. Unlike most other interference studies, this design is able to rule out encoding interference as an alternative explanation. Encoding accounts postulate that it is not cue overload at the retrieval site but the erroneous encoding of similar linguistic items in memory that leads to interference (Lewandowsky et al., 2008; Oberauer & Kliegl, 2006). While Van Dyke & McElree (2006) reported cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors, the evidence for this effect was weak. A subsequent study did not show interference of this type (Van Dyke et al., 2014). Given these inconclusive findings, further research is necessary to investigate semantic cue-based retrieval interference.
The second study in this dissertation provides a larger-scale cross-linguistic investigation of cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external items. Three larger-sample eye-tracking studies in English, German, and Russian tested cue-based interference in the online processing of filler-gap dependencies. This study further extends the previous research by investigating interference in each language under varying task demands (Logačev & Vasishth, 2016; Swets et al., 2008).
Overall, we see some very modest support for proactive cue-based retrieval interference in English. Unexpectedly, this was observed only under a low task demand. In German and Russian, there is some evidence against the interference effect. It is possible that interference is attenuated in languages with richer case marking.
In sum, the cross-linguistic experiments on the time course of syntactic and semantic interference from sentence-internal distractors support existing evidence of syntactic and semantic interference during sentence comprehension. Our data further show that both types of interference effects can arise simultaneously. Our cross-linguistic experiments investigating semantic cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors suggest that this type of interference may arise only in specific linguistic contexts.
This dissertation explores whether the processing of ellipsis is affected by changes in the complexity of the antecedent, either due to added linguistic material or to the presence of a temporary ambiguity. Murphy (1985) hypothesized that ellipsis is resolved via a string copying procedure when the antecedent is within the same sentence, and that copying longer strings takes more time. Such an account also implies that the antecedent is copied without its structure, which in turn implies that recomputing its syntax and semantics may be necessary at the ellipsis gap. Alternatively, several accounts predict null effects of antecedent complexity, as well as no reparsing. These either involve a structure copying mechanism that is cost-free and whose finishing time is thus independent of the form of the antecedent (Frazier & Clifton, 2001), treat ellipsis as a pointer into content-addressable memory with direct access (Martin & McElree, 2008, 2009), or assume that one structure is ‘shared’ between antecedent and gap (Frazier & Clifton, 2005).
In a self-paced reading study on German sluicing, temporarily ambiguous garden-path clauses were used as antecedents, but no evidence of reparsing in the form of a slowdown at the ellipsis site was found. Instead, results suggest that antecedents which had been reanalyzed from an initially incorrect structure were easier to retrieve at the gap. This finding that can be explained within the framework of cue-based retrieval parsing (Lewis & Vasishth, 2005), where additional syntactic operations on a structure yield memory reactivation effects.
Two further self-paced reading studies on German bare argument ellipsis and English verb phrase ellipsis investigated if adding linguistic content to the antecedent would increase processing times for the ellipsis, and whether insufficiently demanding comprehension tasks may have been responsible for earlier null results (Frazier & Clifton, 2000; Martin & McElree, 2008). It has also been suggested that increased antecedent complexity should shorten rather than lengthen retrieval times by providing more unique memory features (Hofmeister, 2011). Both experiments failed to yield reliable evidence that antecedent complexity affects ellipsis processing times in either direction, irrespectively of task demands.
Finally, two eye-tracking studies probed more deeply into the proposed reactivation-induced speedup found in the first experiment. The first study used three different kinds of French garden-path sentences as antecedents, with two of them failing to yield evidence for reactivation. Moreover, the third sentence type showed evidence suggesting that having failed to assign a structure to the antecedent leads to a slowdown at the ellipsis site, as well as regressions towards the ambiguous part of the sentence. The second eye-tracking study used the same materials as the initial self-paced reading study on German, with results showing a pattern similar to the one originally observed, with some notable differences.
Overall, the experimental results are compatible with the view that adding linguistic material to the antecedent has no or very little effect on the ease with which ellipsis is resolved, which is consistent with the predictions of cost-free copying, pointer-based approaches and structure sharing. Additionally, effects of the antecedent’s parsing history on ellipsis processing may be due to reactivation, the availability of multiple representations in memory, or complete failure to retrieve a matching target.
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.
This dissertation addresses the question of how linguistic structures can be represented in working memory. We propose a memory-based computational model that derives offline and online complexity profiles in terms of a top-down parser for minimalist grammars (Stabler, 2011). The complexity metric reflects the amount of time an item is stored in memory. The presented architecture links grammatical representations stored in memory directly to the cognitive behavior by deriving predictions about sentence processing difficulty.
Results from five different sentence comprehension experiments were used to evaluate the model's assumptions about memory limitations. The predictions of the complexity metric were compared to the locality (integration and storage) cost metric of Dependency Locality Theory (Gibson, 2000). Both metrics make comparable offline and online predictions for four of the five phenomena. The key difference between the two metrics is that the proposed complexity metric accounts for the structural complexity of intervening material. In contrast, DLT's integration cost metric considers the number of discourse referents, not the syntactic structural complexity.
We conclude that the syntactic analysis plays a significant role in memory requirements of parsing. An incremental top-down parser based on a grammar formalism easily computes offline and online complexity profiles, which can be used to derive predictions about sentence processing difficulty.
Production of regular and non-regular verbs : evidence for a lexical entry complexity account
(2010)
The incredible productivity and creativity of language depends on two fundamental resources: a mental lexicon and a mental grammar. Rules of grammar enable us to produce and understand complex phrases we have not encountered before and at the same time constrain the computation of complex expressions. The concepts of the mental lexicon and mental grammar have been thoroughly tested by comparing the use of regular versus non-regular word forms. Regular verbs (e.g. walk-walked) are computed using a suffixation rule in a neural system for grammatical processing; non-regular verbs (run-ran) are retrieved from associative memory. The role of regularity has only been explored for the past tense, where regularity is overtly visible. To explore the representation and encoding of regularity as well as the inflectional processes involved in the production of regular and non-regular verbs, this dissertation investigated three groups of German verbs: regular, irregular and hybrid verbs. Hybrid verbs in German have completely regular conjugation in the present tense and irregular conjugation in the past tense. Articulation latencies were measured while participants named pictures of actions, producing the 3rd person singular of regular, hybrid, and irregular verbs in present and past tense. Studying the production of German verbs in past and present tense, this dissertation explored the complexity of lexical entries as a decisive factor in the production of verbs.
This is the first issue of a series in which affiliates of the Institute of Linguistics report the results of their experimental work. Generative linguistics usually rely on the method of native speaker judgements in order to test their hypotheses. If a hypothesis rules out a set of sentences, linguistics can ask native speakers whether they feel these sentences are indeed ungrammatical in their language. There are, however, circumstances where this method is unreliable. In such cases a more elaborate method to test a hypothesis is called. All papes in this series, and hence, all papers in this volume deal with issues that cannot be reliably tested with native speaker judgements. This volume contains 7 papers, all using different methods and finding answers to very different questions. This heterogenity, by the way, reflects the various interests and research programs of the institute. The paper, by Trutkowski, Zugck, Blaszczak, Fanselow, Fischer and Vogel deals with superiority in 10 Indo-European languages. The paper by Schlesewsky, Fanselow and Frisch and by Schlesewsky and Frisch, deal with the role of case in processing German sentences. The paper by Vogel and Frisch deals with resolving case conflicts, as does the paper by Vogel and Zugck. The nature of partitive case is the topic of the paper by Fischer. The paper by K?gler deals with the realization of question intonation in two German dialects. We hope that you enjoy reading the papers!