Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 301-349

  Boston, Marisa Ferrara ^a   Hale, John T ^a   Vasishth, Shravan ^b   Kliegl, Reinhold ^b  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computer model; Corpus; Parsing; Reading

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER MODEL; EYE FIXATION; GERMANY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESSING; READING;

EID: 79952733573     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.492228     Document Type: Article

References (134)

1. Abney, S., McAllester, D., & Pereira, F. (1999). Relating probabilistic grammars and automata. In 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 542-549). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
2. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267-281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451-474.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human symbol manipulation within an integrated cognitive architecture. Cognitive Science, 29, 313-341.
8. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060. Retrieved from http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/publications/pubinfo.php?id_526
9. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). Atomic components of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Attneave, F. (1959). Applications of information theory to psychology: A summary of basic concepts, methods and results. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Barton, G. E., & Berwick, R. C. (1985). Parsing with assertion sets and information monotonicity. In A. Joshi (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 769-771). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
13. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999375-27) [Computer software].
14. Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer.
15. Boland, J. E. (1992). The use of lexical knowledge in sentence processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
16. Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2006). Argument status and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 35, 385-403.
17. Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Patil, U., Kliegl, R., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 1-12.
18. Brants, S., Dipper, S., Eisenberg, P., Hansen-Schirra, S., König, E., Lezius, W., et al. (2004). TIGER: Linguistic interpretation of a German corpus. Research on Language and Computation, 2, 597-619.
19. Brants, T., & Crocker, M. (2000). Probabilistic parsing and psychological plausibility. In Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics COLING-2000 (pp. 111-117). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
20. Buch-Kromann, M. (2001). Optimality parsing and local cost functions in discontinuous grammar. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 53, 1-17.
21. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Chomsky, N. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory (pp. 383-439). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
23. Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23(2), 157-205.
24. Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. In G. Carlson & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273-317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. V. Gompel, M. Fisher, W.Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341-372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
26. Covington, M. A. (2001). A fundamental algorithm for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM Southeast Conference (pp. 95-102). Athens, GA: ACM.
27. Cowper, E. A. (1976). Constraints on sentence complexity: A model for syntactic processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Brown University, Providence, RI.
28. Crocker, M. W., & Brants, T. (2000). Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 647-669.
29. Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193-210.
30. Demidenko, E. (2004). Mixed models: Theory and applications. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley and Sons.
31. Dubey, A. (2004). Statistical parsing for German: Modeling syntactic properties and annotation differences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saarland University, Germany.
32. Earley, J. (1970). An efficient context-free parsing algorithm. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13(2), 94-102.
33. Elman, J. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
34. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777-813.
35. Faraway, J. (2005). Extending the linear model with R. London: Chapman & Hall.
36. Fodor, J., Bever, T., & Garrett, M. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. M. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Frank, R. (2002). Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Frank, S. (2009). Surprisal-based comparison between a symbolic and a connectionist model of sentence processing. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1139-1144). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
40. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
41. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: a tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: a new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
43. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
44. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
46. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
47. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. ONeil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95-126). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
48. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000 March). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 231-240.
49. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Gorrell, P. (1989). Establishing the loci of serial and parallel effects in syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 61-74.
51. Grodner, D. J., & Gibson, E. A. F. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261-291.
52. Hale, J. T. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL 2001 (pp. 1-8). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
53. Hartley, R.V. L. (1928). Transmission of information. Bell System Technical Journal, 7, 535-563.
54. Hays, D. G. (1964). Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language, 40, 511-525.
55. Hofmeister, P. (2007). Memory retrieval effects on filler-gap processing. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1091-1096). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
56. Hofmeister, P. (2009). Encoding effects on memory retrieval in language comprehension. Paper presented at the 22nd CUNY Conference, University of California, Davis, CA.
57. Howes, A., Lewis, R. L., & Vera, A. (2009). Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: Implications for testing theories of cognition and action. Psychological Review, 116(4), 717-751.
58. Hudson, R. (2007). Networks of language: The new word grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
59. Joshi, A. K. (2004). Starting with complex primitives pays off: Complicate locally, simplify globally. Cognitive Science, 28(5), 637-668.
60. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
61. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 98, 122-149.
62. Just, M. A., & Varma, S. (2007). The organization of thinking: What functional brain imaging reveals about the neuroarchitecture of complex cognition. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(3), 153-191.
63. Kahane, S., Nasr, A., & Rambow, O. (1998). Pseudo-projectivity: A polynomially parsable nonprojective dependency grammar. In Proceedings of ACL-COLING (pp. 646-652). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
64. Kaplan, R. M. (1972). Augmented transition networks as psychological models of sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 3, 77-100.
65. Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 262-284.
66. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12-35.
67. Kohonen, T. (1989). Self-organization and associative memory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
68. Kornai, A., & Pullum, G. K. (1990). The X-bar theory of phrase structure. Language, 66(1), 24-50.
69. Kroch, A., & Joshi, A. (1985). The linguistic relevance of tree adjoining grammar (Tech. Rep. No. MS-CIS-85-16). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
70. Kurtzman, H. S. (1984, July). Ambiguity resolution in the human syntactic parser: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on computational linguistics and 22nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 481-485). Stanford, CA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
71. Lackner, J., & Garrett, M. (1973). Resolving ambiguity: Effects of biasing context in the unattended ear. Cognition, 1(4), 359-372.
72. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126-1177.
73. Lewis, R. L. (1993). An architecturally-based theory of human sentence comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
74. Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93-115.
75. Lewis, R. L. (2000). Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: Empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 241-248.
76. Lewis, R. L., & Nakayama, M. (2001). Syntactic and positional similarity effects in the processing of Japanese embeddings. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence processing in east Asian languages (pp. 85-113). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
77. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1-45.
78. Logačev, P., & Vasishth, S. (in press). Morphological ambiguity and working memory. In P. de Swart & M. Lamers (Eds.), Case, word order, and prominence: Psycholinguistic and theoretical approaches to argument structure. New York, NY: Springer.
79. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703.
80. Manning, C., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
81. Marcus, M. P. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Marcus, M. P., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. M. (1983, June). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 129-136). Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
83. Mayberry, M. R., Crocker, M. W., & Knoeferle, P. (2009). Learning to attend: A connectionist model of situated language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 449-496.
84. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). Interactive processes in speech perception: The TRACE Model. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, and the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp. 58-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
85. McClelland, J. L., & Kawamoto, A. H. (1986). Mechanisms of sentence processing: Assigning roles to constituents of sentences. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, and the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp. 272-325). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86. McClelland, J. L., St. John, M., & Taraban, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A pdp approach. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 287-336.
87. McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67-91.
88. Mel'čuk, I. A. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. New York: SUNY Press.
89. Miller, G., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. Luce, R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 419-491). New York, NY: John Wiley.
90. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human processing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601-618). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
91. Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375-411). New York: Academic Press.
92. Mitchell, D. C. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarsegrained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.
93. Nederhof, M-J., & Satta, G. (2006). Probabilistic parsing strategies. Journal of the ACM, 53(3), 542-549.
94. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
95. Nivre, J. (2004). Incrementality in deterministic dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the workshop on incremental parsing (ACL) (pp. 50-57). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
96. Nivre, J. (2006). Inductive dependency parsing. New York, NY: Springer.
97. Nivre, J., & Nilsson, J. (2005). Pseudo-projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ACLCOLING (pp. 99-106). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
98. Park, J., & Brew, C. (2006). A finite-state model of human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp. 49-56). Sydney, Australia.
99. Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Compound effect of probabilistic disambiguation and memory retrievals on sentence processing: Evidence from an eye-tracking corpus [Paper No. 170]. In A. Howes, D. Peebles, & R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Manchester, UK.
100. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
101. Pollard, C. J., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
102. Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E., & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the E_Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1-56.
103. R Development Core Team (2006). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer program manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
104. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
105. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
106. Reichle, E., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157.
107. Reichle, E., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using e_z reader to model the effects of higherlevel language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1-21.
108. Roark, B. (2004). Robust garden path parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 10(1), 1-24.
109. Roark, B., Bachrach, A., Cardenas, C., & Pallier, C. (2009, August). Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing. In Proceedings of the 2009 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 324-333). Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics.
110. Roark, B., & Johnson, M. (1999, March). Broad coverage predictive parsing. Paper presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York.
111. Rohde, D. L. (2002). A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
112. Rosenbloom, P. S., Laird, J. E., & Newell, A. (1993). The SOAR papers: Research on integrated intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
113. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J., & PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
114. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
115. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101-130.
116. Shaher, R., Engelmann, F., Logačev, P., Vasishth, S., & Srinivasan, N. (2009). The integration advantage due to clefting and topicalization. In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia. Hyderabad, India.
117. Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
118. Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2006). Two brief topics on modelling with WinBUGS. Paper presented at IceBUGS conference. Hanko, Finland.
119. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 64, (B), 583-639.
120. Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Mmemory and Cognition, 24(6), 1521-1543.
121. Stolcke, A. (1995). An efficient probabilistic context-free parsing algorithm that computes prefix probabilities. Computational Linguistics, 21(2).
122. Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(5), 449-494.
123. Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 491-515.
124. Taylor, W. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.
125. Tesnière, L. (1959). Elements de syntaxe structurale [Elements of structural syntax]. Paris, France: Klincksiek.
126. Titov, I., & Henderson, J. (2007). A latent variable model for generative dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (pp. 178-182). Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.
127. Van Dyke, J. A. (2007). Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 407-430.
128. Van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 285-316.
129. Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 157-166.
130. Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82(4), 767-794. Retrieved from http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/vasishth/Papers/LangVasLewFinal.pdf
131. Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
132. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.
133. Weinberg, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(3), 339-364.
134. Zhang, Y., & Clark, S. (2009). Transition-based parsing of the Chinese treebank using a global discriminative model. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (pp. 162-171). Paris, France: Association for Computational Linguistics.