Wie viel Information können wir antizipieren? Zum Problem der Inkrementalität und uneingeschränkten Interaktivität beim Satzverstehen

Jolanta Sękowska

doi:10.18778/1427-9665.13.02

Authors

Jolanta Sękowska Maria-Curie-Skłodowska-Universität in Lublin, Institut für Germanistik und Angewandte Linguistik, Pl. Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej 4a, 20-031 Lublin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1427-9665.13.02

Keywords:

sentence comprehension, sentence processing, incrementality, anticipation, interactivity

Abstract

This paper discusses the issue of the boundaries of incrementality in sentence-comprehension processes.The maximum incrementality, postulated as unlimited interactive sentence-comprehension models, allows anticipation and prediction top-down processing, facilitating quick interpretation of the perceived linguistic input. However, it involves a substantial strain on cognitive resources, especially at the beginning of the sentence. In addition, in the case of structures with verbs placed at the end of a sentence, unlimited interactivity keeps vast knowledge resources active until the verb and its arguments are agreed.This imposes a certain order of importance on interactive models at the same time assigned to the ongoing top-down processing, thus limiting incrementality, interactivity and the ability to anticipate.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Altmann G.T.M., Mirković J. (2009), Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. In: Cognitive Science, H. 33, S. 583–609.

Aoshima S., Phillips C., Weinberg A. (2004), Processing filler-gap dependencies in a headfinal language. In: Journal of Memory and Language, H. 51, S. 23–54.

Bader M., Lasser I.(1994), German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In: Clifton Ch./Frazier L./Rayner K. (Hgg.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, Hillsdale NJ, S. 225–242.

Bever T.G.(1970), The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In: Hayes J.R. (Hg.), Cognition and the development of language, New York, S. 279–362.

Boland J.E., Boehm-Jernigan H.(1998), Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment.In: Journal of Memory and Language, H. 39, S. 684–719.

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M.(2009), Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective, Oxford.

Bresnan J.(2001) (Hg.), Lexical-Functional Syntax, Oxford.

Chomsky N.(1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge.

Chomsky N.(1981), Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures, Dordrecht.

Crocker M.W., Keller F.(2006), Probabilistic grammars as models of gradience in language processing. In: Fanselow G./Féry C./Vogel R./Schlesewsky M. (Hgg.), Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives, Oxford, S. 227–245.

Featherston S.(2005), The decathlon model of empirical syntax. In: Kepser S./Reis M. (Hgg.), Linguistic evidence – Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, Berlin, S. 187–208.

Ferreira F., Clifton Ch.(1986), The independence of syntactic processing. In: Journal of Memory and Language, Bd. 25, H. 3, S. 348–368.

Fillmore Ch.(1988), The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Bd. 14, S. 33–35.

Fillmore Ch., Kay P., O’Connor M.C. (1988), Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions. In: Language, Bd. 64, H. 3, S. 501–538.

Hindle D., Rooth, M.(1993), Structural Ambiguity and Lexical Relations. In: Computational Linguistics, H. 19, S. 103–120.

Jurafsky D.(2003), Probabilistic modelling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In: Bod R./Hay J./Jannedy S. (Hgg.), Probablistic Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, S. 39–96.

Kamide Y., Altmann G.T.M., Haywood S.L. (2003), The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. In: Journal of Memory and Language, H. 49, S. 133–156.

Kamide Y., Mitchell D.C. (1999), Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. In: Language and Cognitive Processes, H. 14, S. 631–662.

Kempen G., Harbusch K. (2005), The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In: Kepser S./Reis M.(Hgg.), Linguistic evidence – Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, Berlin, S. 329–349.

Lombardo V., Sturt P. (2002), Incrementality and lexicalism: A treebank study. In: Merlo P./Stevenson S.(Hgg.), The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing. Formal, computational and experimental issues. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, S. 137–156.

MacDonald M.C., Pearlmutter N.J., Seidenberg M.S. (1994), The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In: Psychological Review, Bd. 101, H. 4, S. 676–703.

McRae K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Tanenhaus M.K.(1998), Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension. In: Journal of Memory and Language, Bd. 38, H. 3, S. 283–312.

Miyamoto E.T.(2002), Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. In: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Bd. 31, H. 4, S. 307–347.

Naumann S., Langer H.(1994), Parsing – Eine Einführung in die maschinelle Analyse natürlicher Sprache, Stuttgart.

Pablos L. (2011), Rich agreement in Basque: Evidence for pre-verbal structure building. In: Yamashita H./Hirose Y./Packard J.L. (Hgg.), Processing and Producing Head-final Structures, Dordrecht u.a., S. 3–22.

Pickering M.J., Traxler M., Crocker M.W.(2000), Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. In: Journal of Memory and Language, H. 43, S. 447–475.

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. In: Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Bd. 22, H. 3, S. 358–374.

Schwenk H.-J.(2017a), Ergänzungen und Angaben und sonst nichts? Die syntaktische Umgebung des deutschen Verbs und ihre Gliederung, Frankfurt a.M.u.a.

Schwenk H.-J. (2017b), Exemplarisches Valenz- und Konstruktionswörterbuch deutscher Verben. Die Differenzierung und Klassifizierung der Begleiter des deutschen Verbs und ihre lexikographische Umsetzung in neuer Konzeption, Frankfurt a.M.u.a.

Schütze C.T., Gibson E. (1999), Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment.In: Journal of Memory and Language, H. 40, S. 409–431.

Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K.(1994), Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In: Clifton C. Jr./Frazier L./Rayner K. (Hgg.), Perspectives in sentence processing, Hillsdale, NJ, S. 155–179.

Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., Garnsey S.M.(1994), Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In: Journal of Memory and Language, Bd. 33, H. 3, S. 285–318.

Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Kello, C.(1993), Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, H. 19, S. 528–553.

Vosse T., Kempen G.(2000), Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. In: Cognition, Bd. 72, H. 2, S. 105–143.

Yoo D.G. (2007), Syntax und Kontext: Satzverarbeitung in kopffinalen Sprachen, Dissertation, Universität Bielefeld.