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.

References

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

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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.
Google Scholar

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

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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