Language Processing, Linguistics and Constraints

Authors

  • Juan Carlos Acuña Fariña Universidad de Santiago de Compostela

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.200310397

Keywords:

psycholinguistics, parsing, constraints, control, modularity

Abstract

Recently, Gibson and Pearlmutter (1998, 2000) and Lewis (2000a, 2000b), among others, have debated whether the initial spark that gets language comprehension started is deterministically created in the same narrow place, always, or, on the contrary, whether that ignition may come from a variety of different places, a broad base. One may schematically conceptualise these two opposite approaches to initial parsing as either an inverted or a non-inverted pyramid respectively. In this paper I will argue for a broad-base, non-inverted pyramid view of the ignition problem. In support of this I will rely primarily on the strength of recent psycholinguistic evidence, as exemplified through the extensively studied [Complex NP+Relative Clause] construction. A key issue will be whether it makes sense to assume that the processing of linguistic reality should be any easier than the (notoriously complex) linguistic reality itself. This point makes sense against the background of a series of well-known formalist accounts of parsing which dominated psycholinguistic research in the 80s and early 90s by appealing deterministically, to merely two or three kinds of syntactic geometry.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ACUÑA, Carlos. (in press). “The role of experience in syntactic processing: a critical view from the linguistics building”. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense.

BACCINO, Thierry, Martica de VINCENZI and Remo JOB. 2000. “Cross-linguistic studies of the late closure strategy: French and Italian’”. In de Vincenzi, Martica and Vincenzo Lombardo. (eds.). Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press: 89-118.

BARKER, Jason, Janet NICOL and Merrill GARRETT. 2001. “Semantic factors in the production of number agreement”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30: 91-115.

BATES, Ellizabeth and Brian MACWHINNEY. 1989. “Functionalism and the competition model”. In MacWhinney, Brian and Elizabeth Bates. (eds.). The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.: 1-73.

BETANCORT, Moisés, Manuel CARREIRAS and Carlos ACUÑA. (in press). “Processing PRO in Spanish”. Cognition.

BOCK, Kathryn and Kathleen EBERHARD. 1993. “Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement”. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 57-99.

BOWERS, John. 1981. The theory of grammatical relations. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell U. P.

BROWN, Colin, Jos van BERKUM and Peter HAGOORT. 2000. “Discourse before gender: An event-related brain potential study on the interplay of semantic and syntactic information during spoken language understanding”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 53-68.

BRYSBAERT, Marc and Don MITCHELL. 1996. “Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49A: 664-695.

BRYSBAERT, Marc, Thierry DESMET and Don MITCHELL. 1999. “Modifier attachment in Dutch: assessing the merits of the tuning hypothesis”. Poster presented at Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing (AMLaP), Edinburgh, UK.

BRYSBAERT, Marc and Don MITCHELL. 2000. “The failure to use gender information in parsing: a comment on van Berkum, Brown and Hagoort (1999)”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 453-466.

CARLSON, Katy, Charles CLIFTON and Lyn FRAZIER. 2001. “Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment”. Journal of Memory and Language 45: 58-81.

CARREIRAS, Manuel. 1997. Descubriendo y procesando el lenguaje. Madrid: Trotta.

CARREIRAS, Manuel and Charles CLIFTON. 1999. “Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eye-tracking evidence from Spanish and English”. Memory and Cognition 27: 826-833.

CHOMSKY, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.

—. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

—. 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory”. In Hale, K. and S.J. Keyser. (eds.). The view from building twenty. Essays in Linguistics in honour of Sylvain Bromerger. Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press: 1-52.

—. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.

CORLEY, Martin. 1996. The role of statistics in human sentence processing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Exeter, UK.

CUETOS, Fernando and Don MITCHELL. 1988. “Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish”. Cognition 30: 73-105.

CUETOS, Fernando, Don MITCHELL and Martin CORLEY. 1996. “Parsing in different languages”. In Carreiras, Manuel, José García-Albea and Nuria Sebastián-Gallés. (eds.). Language processing in Spanish. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum: 145-187.

CULICOVER, Peter and Ray JACKENDOFF. 2001. “Control is not movement”. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493-512.

De BAECKE, Cosntantin, Marc BRYSBAERT and Thierry DESMET. 2000. “The importance of structural and non-structural variables in modifier attachment: a corpus study in Dutch”. Poster presented at AMLaP, Leiden, Holland.

DEEVY, Patricia. 1999. The comprehension of English subject-verb agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherts, USA.

—. 2000. “Agreement checking in comprehension. Evidence form relative clauses”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 69-79.

De VINCENZI, Martica. 1998. “Syntactically based parsing strategies: Evidence from typologically different languages”. In Hillert, Dieter. (ed.). Syntax and Semantics, (volume 31). New York: New York Academic Press: 337- 344.

EDMONDS, Joseph. 1979. “Appositive relatives have no properties”. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 211-243.

FERNÁNDEZ, Eva and Dianne BRADLEY. 2000. “Evidence of language-independent processing in Spanish/English bilinguals: Relative clause attachment”. Poster presented at AMLaP, Leiden, Holland.

FODOR, Janet. 1998. “Learning to parse?”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 285-319.

FODOR, Jerry. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.

—. 1967. “Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity”. Perception and Psychophysics 2: 289-296.

FRAZIER, Lyn. 1977. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, USA.

—. 1987. “Sentence processing: A tutorial review”. In Coltheart, Max. (ed.). Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum: 559-586.

—. 1990. “Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism?”. In Balota, David, Giovani Flores d’Arcais and Keith Rayner. (eds.). Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum: 303-330.

FRAZIER, Lyn and Janet FODOR. 1978. “The sausage machine: a new two-stage parsing model”. Cognition 6: 91-326.

FRAZIER, Lyn and Keith RAYNER. 1982. “Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally amabiguous sentences”. Cognitive Psychology 14. 178-210.

FRAZIER, Lyn and Charles CLIFTON. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.

—. 1997. “Construal: Overview, motivation and some new evidence”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26: 277-295.

FRENCK-MESTRE, Cheryl and Joel PYNTE. 2000a. “Resolving syntactic ambiguities: crosslinguistic differences?”. In de Vincenzi, Martica and Vincenzo Lombardo. (eds.). Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press: 119-148.

—. 2000b. “’Romancing’ syntactic ambiguity: Why the French and the Italians don’t see eye to eye”. In Kennedy, Alan, Ralph Radach, Dieter Heller and Joel Pynte. (eds.). Reading as a perceptual process. Oxford: Elsevier: 549-564.

GARCÍA-ORZA, Javier. 2001. El papel de la experiencia en los procesos de desambiguación sintáctica. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Málaga, Spain.

GARCÍA-ORZA, Javier, Isabel FRAGA, Mamen TEIJIDO and Carlos ACUÑA. 2000. “High attachment preferences in Galician relative clauses: Preliminary data”. Poster presented at AMLaP, Leiden, Holland.

GIBSON, Edward and Neil PEARLMUTTER. 1998. “Constraints on sentence comprehension”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2: 262-268.

—. 2000. “Distinguising serial and parallel parsing”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 231-239.

GIBSON, Edward, Neil PEARLMUTTER, Enriqueta CANSECO-GONZÁLEZ and Gregory HICOCK. 1996. “Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism”. Cognition 59: 23-59.

GIBSON, Edward, Neil PEARLMUTTER and Vicenc TORRENS. 1997. “Recency and predicate proximity in sentence comprehension”. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Mónica, USA.

—. 1999. “Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish”. Memory and Cognition 27: 603-611.

GIBSON, Edward and Carson SCHÜTZE. 1999. “Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency”. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 263-279.

GILBOY, Elisabeth and Josep SOPEÑA. 1996. “Segmentation effects in the processing of complex noun pronouns with relative clauses”. In Carreiras, Manuel, José García-Albea and Nuria Sebastián-Gallés. (eds.). Language processing in Spanish. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum: 191-206.

GILBOY, Elisabeth, Josep SOPEÑA, Charles CLIFTON and Lyn FRAZIER. 1995. “Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs”. Cognition 54: 131-167.

GRIMSHAW, Jane. 1990. Argument structure Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.

GRODNER, David, Edward GIBSON and Susan TUNSTALL. 2002. “Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution”. Journal of Memory and Language 46: 267-295.

HEMFORTH, Barbara, Lars KONIECZNY, Christoph SCHEEPERS and Gerhard STRUBE. 1998. “Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German”. In Hillert, Dieter. (ed.). Sentence Processing: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Academic Press: 293-312.

HEMFORTH, Barbara, Lars KONIECZNY and Christoph SCHEEPERS. 2000. “Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: Two sides of relative clause attachment”. In Crocker, C. Martin Pickering and Charles Clifton. (eds.). Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.: 259- 281.

HORNSTEIN, Norbert. 1999. “Movement and control”. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.

JACKENDOFF, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT press.

JOHNSON-LAIRD, Philip. 1970. “The perception and memory of sentences”. In Lyons, John. (ed.). New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin: 261-270.

—. 1974. “Experimental psycholinguistics”. Annual review of Psychology 25: 135-160.

KONIECZNY, Lars, Barbara HEMFORTH, Christoph SCHEEPERS and Gerhard STRUBE. 1994. “Reanalysis vs. internal repairs: Nonmonotonic processes in sentence perception”. In Hemforth, Barbara, Lars Konieczny, Christoph Scheepers and Gerhard Strube. (eds.). First analysis, reanalysis, and repair. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität: 1-22.

LEWIS, Richard. 2000a. “Serial and parallel parsing”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 241-248.

—. 2000b. “Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 241-248.

MACDONALD, Maryellen, Neil PEARLMUTTER and Mark SEIDENBERG. 1994. “Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution”. Psychological Review 101: 676-703.

MITCHELL, Don. 1994. “Sentence parsing”. In Gernsbacher, M. (ed.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press: 375-409.

MITCHELL, Don and Fernando CUETOS. 1991. “The origins of parsing strategies”. In Smith, C. (ed.). Current issues in natural language processing. Austin, Texas: University of Texas: 1-12.

MITCHELL, Don, Fernando CUETOS, Martin CORLEY and Marc BRYSBAERT. 1995. “Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24: 469-488.

MITCHELL, Don, Fernando CUETOS and Martin CORLEY. 1992. “Statistical versus linguistic determinants of parsing bias: Crosslinguistic evidence”. Paper presented at the 5th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, USA.

MITCHELL, Don, Marc BRYSBAERT, Stefan GRONDENLAERS and Piet SWANEPOEL. 2000. “Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of construal theory”. In Kennedy, Alan, Ralph Radach, Dieter Heller and Joel Pynte. (eds.). Reading as a perceptual process. Oxford: Elsevier.

NICOL, Janet, Kenneth FORSTER and Csaba VERES. 1997. “Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension”. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 569-587.

PEARLMUTTER, Neil 2000. “Linear versus hierarchical agreement processes in comprehension”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 89-98.

PEARLMUTTER, Neil, Susan GARNSEY and Kathryn BOCK. 1995. “Subject-verb agreement processes in sentence comprehension”. Paper presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

PICKERING, Martin, Matthew TRAXLER and Matthew CROCKER. 2000. “Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: evidence against frequency-based accounts”. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 447-475.

PRAT-SALA, Mercé and Holly BRANIGAN. 2000. “Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish”. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 169-182.

PYNTE, Joel and Benedicte PRIEUR. 1996. “Prosodic breaks in attachment decisions in sentence processing”. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 165-192.

PYNTE, Joel and Saveria COLONNA. 2000. “Decoupling syntactic parsing from visual inspection: The case of relative clauses”. In Kennedy, Alan, Ralph Radach, Dieter Heller and Joel Pynte. (eds.). Reading as a perceptual process. Oxford: Elsevier: 529-547.

RAYNER, Keith and Susan DUFFY. 1986. “Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity”. Memory and Cognition 14: 191-201.

ROSENBAUM, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.

ROSS, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.

SCHAFER, my and Shary SPEER. 1997. “The role of prosodic phrasing in sentence comprehension”. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA, USA.

SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, Michael and July SEDIVY. 1995. “Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints”. Cognition 55: 227-267.

STUURMAN, Frits. 1983. “Appositives and X-bar theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 736-744.

SWINNEY, David. 1979. “Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)considerations of context effects”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 18: 645-659.

TANNENHAUS, Michael. 1988. “Psycholinguistics: an overview”. In Newmeyer, Frederick. (ed.). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey (vol 3). Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.:1-37.

TANNENHAUS, Michael and John TRUESWELL. 1995. “Sentence Comprehension”. In Miller, John and Peter Eimas. (eds.). Speech, language, and communication. San Diego, CA: Academic Press: 217-262.

TANNENHAUS, Michael, Michael SPIVEY-KNOWLTON and Joy HANNA. 2000. “Modelling thematic and discourse context effects with a multiple constraints approach: Implications for the language comprehension system”. In Crocker, Matthew, Matthew Pickering and Charles Clifton. (eds.). Architectures and mechanisms for language processing. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge U. P.: 90-118.

THORNTON, Robert and Maryellen MACDONALD. 1999. “The role of phrase length in modification ambiguities”. Cognition 55: 227-267.

TRAXLER, Matthew, Martin PICKERING and Charles CLIFTON. 1998. “Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution”. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 558-592.

TRUESWELL, John. 1996. “The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution”. Journal of Memory and Language 35: 566-585.

TRUESWELL, John, Michael TANENHAUS and Christopher KELLO. 1993. “Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from gardenpaths”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19: 528-553.

Van VERKUM, Jos, Peter HAGOORT and Colin BROWN. 2000. “The use of referential context and grammatical gender in parsing: a reply to Brysbaert and Mitchell (2000)”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 467-481.

ZAGAR, Daniel, Joel PYNTE and Sylvie RATIVEAU. 1997. “Evidence for early closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 50A: 421-438.

Downloads

Published

2003-12-31

How to Cite

Juan Carlos Acuña Fariña. (2003). Language Processing, Linguistics and Constraints. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 27, 11–34. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.200310397

Issue

Section

ARTICLES: Language and linguistics