Literature DB >> 14979816

Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: digging-in effects.

Whitney Tabor1, Sean Hutchins.   

Abstract

Dynamical, self-organizing models of sentence processing predict "digging-in" effects: The more committed the parser becomes to a wrong syntactic choice, the harder it is to reanalyze. Experiment 1 replicates previous grammaticality judgment studies (F. Ferreira & J. M. Henderson, 1991b, 1993), revealing a deleterious effect of lengthening the ambiguous region of a garden-path sentence. The authors interpret this result as a digging-in effect. Experiment 2 finds a corresponding effect on reading times. Experiment 3 finds that making 2 wrong attachments is worse than making 1. Non-self-organizing models require multiple stipulations to predict both kinds of effects. The authors show that, under an appropriately formulated self-organizing account, both results stem from self-reinforcement of node and link activations, a feature that is needed independently. An implemented model is given.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14979816     DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  21 in total

1.  Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing.

Authors:  Julie A Van Dyke
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Activating basic category exemplars in sentence contexts: a dynamical account.

Authors:  Joanna Raczaszek-Leonardi; Lewis P Shapiro; Betty Tuller; J A Scott Kelso
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2008-03

3.  Gradiency and Visual Context in Syntactic Garden-Paths.

Authors:  Thomas A Farmer; Sarah A Cargill; Michael J Spivey
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.059

4.  Lexical interference effects in sentence processing: evidence from the visual world paradigm and self-organizing models.

Authors:  Anuenue Kukona; Pyeong Whan Cho; James S Magnuson; Whitney Tabor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis.

Authors:  Adrian Staub
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.059

6.  Unforced Revision in Processing Relative Clause Association Ambiguity in Japanese: Evidence Against Revision as Last Resort.

Authors:  Toshiyuki Yamada; Manabu Arai; Yuki Hirose
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2017-06

7.  The real-time prediction and inhibition of linguistic outcomes: Effects of language and literacy skill.

Authors:  Anuenue Kukona; David Braze; Clinton L Johns; W Einar Mencl; Julie A Van Dyke; James S Magnuson; Kenneth R Pugh; Donald P Shankweiler; Whitney Tabor
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2016-10-07

8.  Comprehension of Linguistic Dependencies: Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff Evidence for Direct-Access Retrieval From Memory.

Authors:  Stephani Foraker; Brian McElree
Journal:  Lang Linguist Compass       Date:  2011-11

9.  Do resource constraints affect lexical processing? Evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Mallorie Leinenger; Mark Myslín; Keith Rayner; Roger Levy
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.059

10.  Semantic support and parallel parsing in Chinese.

Authors:  Yufen Hsieh; Julie E Boland
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2015-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.