Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm
- PMID: 10709188
- DOI: 10.1023/a:1005105414238
Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm
Abstract
When the human parser encounters a local structural ambiguity, are multiple structures pursued (parallel or breadth-first parsing), or just a single preferred structure (serial or depth-first parsing)? This note discusses four important classes of serial and parallel models: simple limited parallel, ranked limited parallel, deterministic serial with reanalysis, and probabilistic serial with reanalysis. It is argued that existing evidence is compatible only with probabilistic serial-reanalysis models, or ranked parallel models augmented with a reanalysis component. A new class of linguistic structures is introduced on which the behavior of serial and parallel parsers diverge the most radically: multiple local ambiguities are stacked to increase the number of viable alternatives in the ambiguous region from two to eight structures. This paradigm may provide the strongest test yet for parallel models.
Comment in
-
Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing.J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Mar;29(2):231-40. doi: 10.1023/a:1005153330168. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000. PMID: 10709187
Similar articles
-
Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing.J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Mar;29(2):231-40. doi: 10.1023/a:1005153330168. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000. PMID: 10709187
-
Search strategies in syntactic reanalysis.J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Mar;29(2):183-94. doi: 10.1023/a:1005145028351. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000. PMID: 10709183
-
Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing.J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Nov;29(6):647-69. doi: 10.1023/a:1026560822390. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000. PMID: 11196067
-
Disfluencies and human language comprehension.Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 May;8(5):231-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.011. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004. PMID: 15120682 Review.
-
Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: evidence from semantic priming.J Psycholinguist Res. 1993 Mar;22(2):207-37. doi: 10.1007/BF01067831. J Psycholinguist Res. 1993. PMID: 8366476 Review.
Cited by
-
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2016;31(1):32-59. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299. Epub 2015 Nov 13. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2016. PMID: 27135040 Free PMC article.
-
Musical Garden Paths: Evidence for Syntactic Revision Beyond the Linguistic Domain.Cogn Sci. 2022 Jul;46(7):e13165. doi: 10.1111/cogs.13165. Cogn Sci. 2022. PMID: 35738498 Free PMC article.
-
Recurrent temporal networks and language acquisition-from corticostriatal neurophysiology to reservoir computing.Front Psychol. 2013 Aug 5;4:500. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00500. eCollection 2013. Front Psychol. 2013. PMID: 23935589 Free PMC article.
-
Structure before meaning: sentence processing, plausibility, and subcategorization.PLoS One. 2013 Oct 7;8(10):e76326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076326. eCollection 2013. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 24116101 Free PMC article.
-
Against repair-based reanalysis in sentence comprehension.J Psycholinguist Res. 2003 Mar;32(2):141-66. doi: 10.1023/a:1022496223965. J Psycholinguist Res. 2003. PMID: 12690829
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources