A finite-state model of human sentence processing

COLING/ACL 2006 - 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2006, Pages 49-56

  Park, Jihyun ^a   Brew, Chris ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA HANDLING; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; EXPLANATORY POWER; FINITE-STATE MODELS; GARDEN PATH; HUMAN SENTENCE PROCESSING; HUMAN STUDY; PART-OF-SPEECH TAGGER; SENTENCE PROCESSING;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

EID: 79952719180     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/1220175.1220182     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. S. Bangalore and A. K. Joshi. Supertagging: an approach to almost parsing. Computational Linguistics, 25(2):237-266, 1999.
2. T. G. Bever and B. McElree. Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:35-43, 1988.
3. L Burnard. Users Guide for the British National Corpus. British National Corpus Consortium, Oxford University Computing Service, 1995.
4. S. Corley and M. W Crocker. The Modular Statistical Hypothesis: Exploring Lexical Category Ambiguity. Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, M. Crocker, M. Pickering. and C. Charles (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, 2000.
5. W. C. Crocker and T. Brants. Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing, 2000.
6. F. Ferreira and C. Clifton. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25:348-368, 1986.
7. F. Ferreira and J. Henderson. Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16: 555-568, 1986.
8. L. Frazier. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1978.
9. L. Frazier and C. Clifton. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
10. L. Frazier and K. Rayner. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14: 178-210, 1982.
11. J. Hale. A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of NAACL-2001, 2001.
12. V. 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.
13. A. K. Joshi and B. Srinivas. Disambiguation of super parts of speech (or supertags): almost parsing. The Proceedings of the 15th International Confer-ence on Computational Lingusitics (COLING '94), pages 154-160, 1994.
14. C. Juliano and M.K. Tanenhaus. A constraintbased lexicalist account of the subject-object attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23:459-471, 1994.
15. D Jurafsky. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20:137-194, 1996.
16. A. E. Kim, Bangalore S., and J. Trueswell. A computational 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.
17. J. King and M. A. Just. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal ofMemory and Language, 30:580-602, 1991.
18. B. MacWhinney. Basic syntactic processes. Language acquisition; Syntax and semantics, S. Kuczaj (Ed.), 1:73-136, 1982.
19. W.M.Mak, VonkW., and H. Schriefers. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47:50-68, 2002.
20. C.D. Manning and H. Schütze. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999.
21. 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.
22. B. Roark. Probabilistic top-down parsing and language modeling. Computational Linguistics, 27 (2):249-276, 2001.
23. M. J. Traxler, R. K. Morris, and R. E. Seely. Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47:69-90, 2002.
24. J. C. Trueswell. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35:556-585, 1996.
25. A. Viterbi. Error bounds for convolution codes and an asymptotically optimal decoding algorithm. IEEE Transactions of Information Theory, 13: 260-269, 1967.