SOPARSE predicts so-called local coherence effects: locally plausible but globally impossible parses of substrings can exert a distracting influence during sentence processing. Additionally, it predicts digging-in effects: the longer the parser stays committed to a particular analysis, the harder it becomes to inhibit that analysis. We investigated the interaction of these two predictions using German sentences. Results from a self-paced reading study show that the processing difficulty caused by a local coherence can be reduced by first allowing the globally correct parse to become entrenched, which supports SOPARSE’s assumptions.
AltmannG. T.KamideY. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264.
2.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
4.
BaderM.LasserI. (1994). German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In CliftonC.Jr.FrazierL.RaynerK. (Eds.), Perspectives in sentence processing (pp. 225–242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999–0. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
6.
BicknellK.LevyR. (2009). A model of local coherence effects in human sentence processing as consequences of updates from bottom-up prior to posterior beliefs. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 665–673). Boulder, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics.
7.
BicknellK.LevyR.DembergV. (2009). Correcting the incorrect: Local coherence effects modeled with prior belief update. In KwonI.PritchettH.SpenceJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp. 13–24). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
8.
BoxG. E. P.CoxD. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 211–252.
9.
CaiZ. G.SturtP.PickeringM. J. (2011). The effect of nonadopted analyses on sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.599657.
10.
ChomskyN. A. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications.
11.
ChristiansonK.LukeS. G.FerreiraF. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 538–544.
FerreiraF. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203.
14.
FerreiraF.HendersonJ. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 725–745.
15.
FrazierL. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
16.
FrazierL.FodorJ. D. (1978). The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325.
17.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.
18.
GeykenA. (2006). DWDS-Corpus. In FellbaumC. (Ed.), Collocations and idioms: Linguistic, lexicographic, and computational aspects (pp. 23–40). London, UK: Continuum Press.
19.
GeykenA.KleinW.WolzR. (2004). Projekt Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache des 20. Jh. In Jahrbuch der BBAW 2003 (pp. 238–320). Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.
20.
GibsonE. (2006). The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 363–388.
21.
HaleJ. T. (2011). What a rational parser would do. Cognitive Science, 35(3), 399–443.
22.
KaiserE.TrueswellJ. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113–147.
23.
KamideY.MitchellD. C. (1999). Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(5/6), 631–662.
24.
KoniecznyL. (1996). Human sentence processing: A semantics-oriented parsing approach. Doctoral dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität zu Freiburg.
25.
KoniecznyL. (2005). The psychological reality of local coherences in sentence processing. In BaraB. G.BarsalouL.BucciarelliM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1178–1183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
KoniecznyL.HemforthB.ScheepersC.StrubeG. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 307–348.
27.
KoniecznyL.MüllerD.HachmannW.SchwarzkopfS.WolferS. A. (2009). Local syntactic coherence interpretation: Evidence from a visual world study. In TaatgenN. A.van RijnH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1133–1138). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
28.
LevyR. (2008). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 234–243). Madison, WI: Omnipress.
29.
LevyR.BicknellK.SlatteryT.RaynerK. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(50), 21086–21090. (Correction in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 5260)
30.
MorganE.KellerF.SteedmanM. (2010). A bottom-up parsing model of local coherence effects. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, OR (pp. 1559–1564).
31.
R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
32.
SorensenT.VasishthS. (2014). A tutorial on fitting Bayesian linear mixed models using Stan. Submitted toJournal of Mathematical Psychology, arXiv, 1506.06201v1.
33.
SpeyerA. (2004). Competing constraints on Vorfeldbesetzung in German. In ShaerB.FreyW.MaienbornC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop. ZASPiL 35, Vol. 2. (pp. 519–541).
34.
Stan Development Team (2014). Stan Modeling Language: User’s Guide and Reference Manual. Version 2.5.0.
35.
TaborW.GalantucciB.RichardsonD. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 355–370.
36.
TaborW.HutchinsS. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 431–450.
37.
TanenhausM. K.Spivey-KnowltonM. J.EberhardK.SedivyJ. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.
38.
van der WeldeF.de KampsM. (2006). Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures in cognition. Behavorial and Brain Sciences, 29(1), 37–108.
39.
VenablesW. N.RipleyB. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. 4th Edition. New York, NY: Springer.
40.
VosseT.KempenG. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75(2), 105–143.
