1 / 17

Ferreira and Henderson (1990)

Use of Verb Information in Syntactic Parsing: Evidence From Eye Movements and Word-by-Word Self-Paced Reading. Ferreira and Henderson (1990). Sentence processing models.

huslu
Download Presentation

Ferreira and Henderson (1990)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use of Verb Information in Syntactic Parsing: Evidence From Eye Movements and Word-by-Word Self-Paced Reading Ferreira and Henderson (1990)

  2. Sentence processing models • Interactive model: All sorts of information (lexical, syntactic, semantic) communicate in an unconstrained fashion to produce the most plausible reading at the earliest stages of sentence comprehension

  3. Sentence Processing Models cont. • Garden Path Model: Distinct modules within the language system. Communication occurs, but in a constrained fashion. • Minimal Attachment Principle: Sentences initially receive the simplest syntactic analysis possible

  4. Research Questions • Does verb information aid readers in their initial parsing of temporarily ambiguous sentences? • Can verb subcategorization override minimal attachment?

  5. Methodology • Experiment 1: Eyetracking • Experiment 2: noncumulative word-by-word self-paced paradigm • Experiment 3: cumulative word-by-word self-paced paradigm

  6. Experiment 1 • Subjects: 12 members of University of Massachusetts community • Materials: four lists of 80 experimental items and 72 fillers • Factors: verb bias, presence of complementizer

  7. Verb Types • Minimal Attachment Verbs: Strongly biased for a minimal attachment of the ambiguous noun phrase, e.g. guess • Nonminimal Attachment Verbs: Strongly biased for a nonminimal interpretation of the ambiguous noun phrase, e.g. brag

  8. Sentence Frames

  9. Results-First Fixation Duration

  10. Total Reading Time

  11. Regressions • Verb bias had effect on regressions to the disambiguating region. • Reanalysis appeared to be easier with nonminimal attachment verbs (4 vs. 21 regressions)

  12. Experiment 2 • Self-paced reading task (non-cumulative) • Subjects: 24 University of Alberta undergraduates • Materials: Same as Experiment 1

  13. Results- Mean Reading Times

  14. Experiment 3 • Same as Experiment 2, but with a cumulative self-paced reading task (allows reader to reread)

  15. Results –Mean Total Reading Time

  16. Discussion • Expt. 1 : Verb bias did not prevent misanalysis, but seemed to facilitate reanalysis • Expt. 2: Robust effect of verb bias on postdisambiguating region (less total reading times) → verb bias aids reanalysis • Expt. 3: weaker effects (methodological issues)

  17. SO… • The fact that sentences lacking a complementizer are harder to process regardless of verb bias supports the garden-path model!

More Related