1 / 44

Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing

Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing. Frisch, Hahne, and Friedericie (2004) Cognition. Word class information. Major word categories: nouns, verbs, prepositions, adverbs, etc.

josiah
Download Presentation

Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing

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. Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing Frisch, Hahne, and Friedericie (2004) Cognition

  2. Word class information • Major word categories: nouns, verbs, prepositions, adverbs, etc. • Necessary for telling whether a concatenation of words is legal or not in that language • e.g. ‘the doctor’ (Determiner + noun) is okay ‘the of’ (Determiner + determiner) is not

  3. Phrase structures Different members of the same category can have different, lexeme-specific relationships to other elements e.g (1a) Annevisited the doctor last summer. (2) * Annesneezed the doctor last summer.

  4. Different views • Both phrase structure and argument structure information are used to restrict the number of structural alternatives • Phrase structure preferences alone are usedfor initial sentence processing

  5. Visit • Usually appears after a grammatical subject (can be a noun, can be a gerund) • Usually doesn't appear after a preposition or a determiner • Needs to be conjugated for distinctions like number, person, voice, mood, and tense, etc. • Usually takes two arguments (the one who is visited and the one who visits) • The visitor is usually animate Work • Usually appears after a grammatical subject (can be a noun, can be a gerund) • Usually doesn’t appear after a preposition or a determiner • Needs to be conjugated for distinctions like number, person, voice, mood, and tense, etc. • Usually takes one argument (the one who works) • The argument is usually animate Doctor • Usually appears after a determiner or an article • Usually takes the thematic role of ‘agent’ • …….. • …… • …….

  6. Different views • Both phrase structure and argument structure information are used to restrict the number of structural alternatives • Phrase structure preferences alone are usedfor initial sentence processing

  7. Does word class information processed prior to argument information? • What happens if there are double violations? Additive or not?

  8. ERP components • Qualitative difference—different latencies, spatial distributions or polarities in different conditions • Quantitative difference—amplitude modulations without changes in latency or topography • (E)LAN • N400 • P600

  9. N400

  10. left anterior negativity (LAN) Expect the Unexpected: Event-related Brain--Response to Morphosyntactic Violations Coulson, King and Kutas 1998 Language and cognitive processes, 13 (1), 21-58

  11. P600 Expect the Unexpected: Event-related Brain--Response to Morphosyntactic Violations Coulson, King and Kutas 1998 LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 13 (1), 21-58

  12. Conditions 2 (phrase structure) *2(argument structure) • Correct • in the garden was often worked and…… (“Work was often going on in the garden.”) • Phrase structure violation only • in the garden was on-the worked and…… • Argument structure violation only • the garden was often worked and…… • Phrase structure+ argument structure violation • the garden was on-the worked and…… 160 critical items+160 filler items

  13. Experiment 1 Procedure Word by word visual presentation • Duration 400ms • Inter-stimulus interval 100ms • Subjects were asked to perform an acceptability judgment 800ms after the final word of each sentence. ERP recordings Data analysis • Trials with incorrect responses and/or ocular artifacts are excluded from the averages. • Time window: 300-600 (for N400 effect) 600-1200 (for P600 effect)

  14. Experiment 1 Procedure Word by word visual presentation • Duration 400ms • Inter-stimulus interval 100ms • Subjects were asked to perform an acceptability judgment 800ms after the final word of each sentence. ERP recordings Data analysis • Trials with incorrect responses and/or ocular artifacts are excluded from the averages. • Time window: 300-600ms (for N400 effect) 600-1200ms (for P600 effect)

  15. Prediction

  16. Exper 1(visual) Results =Exp 1= Fig. 1.

  17. Results =Exp 1=

  18. Results =Exp 1=

  19. Summary

  20. Experiment 2 Procedure Auditorypresentation • Normal speech rate • Subjects were asked to perform an acceptability judgment 800ms after the final word of each sentence. ERP recordings Data analysis • Trials with incorrect responses and/or ocular artifacts are excluded from the averages. • Time window: 200-400 (for ELAN effect) 300-500 (for N400 effect) 700-1200 (for P600 effect)

  21. Prediction

  22. Exper 2(auditory) Results =Exp 2= Fig. 4.

  23. Results=Exp 2=

  24. Results =Exp 2=

  25. Summary

  26. Exper 1(visual) Exper 2 (auditory) =comparison= Fig. 1. Fig. 4.

  27. Exper 1(visual) Exper 2 (auditory) Fig. 2. Fig. 5. =comparison= =comparison=

  28. Exper 1(visual) Exper 2 (auditory) Fig. 3. Fig. 5. =comparison= =comparison=

  29. Summary The integration of major category information and of lexeme-specific argument taking properties of verbs elicit qualitatively different brain responses. • Phrase structure violation elicit (a LAN followed by) a P600 in the ERP • The LAN effect is more robust in the auditory modality, and is only marginally significant in the visual modality. • Argument structure mismatches is associated with larger N400-P600 responses. • Sentences containing double violations (phrase & argument violation) elicited similar responses as sentences containing phrase violation along • (a LAN followed by) a P600 in the ERP • BUT no N400 effect!! • The P600 doesn't seem to be additive when compared with two other conditions

  30. General discussion The early phrase structure violation correlate –LAN • The presence of a LAN is independent of an additional argument structure violation • supports the view that there exits a correlate for initial phrase structure processing.

  31. General discussion The lexical integration effect –N400 • The larger N400 in this biphasic response indicates the semantic/thematic problems which arise when a NP argument cannot be assigned a thematic role by the verb The absence of N400 effect in the double violation condition • supports the structure-first approaches to parsing • There is a functional priority of word category integration (phrase structure processing) over the integration of all other information types (e.g. argument structure) • Failure to integrate phrase structures would block the following argument structure integration.

  32. General discussion The post-initial evaluation effect –P600 • The P600 elicited in the two different kind of violation may reflect different kind of syntactic repair due to differences in the nature of the violations • Phrase structure—concatenating items to derive a phrase structure representation • Argument structure—matching process between a (legal)structure output and more detailed information from the specific lexical entry • The non-additive P600 in the double violation condition • Ceiling effect, or • The revision processes are primarily determined by phrase structure violations, and are independently of other types of information.

  33. Conclusion • Mismatch of major category information leads to an enhanced LAN as well as P600. • Lexeme specific argument taking properties of verbs is associated with a less reduced N400 and an enlarged P600. • The successful integration of word category information typically precedes the application of verb-argument structure information.

  34. Questions? • All critical words in the experimental item as well as filler items are repeated for 4 times. • Some researchers had found larger N400 for Phrase structure violations • A word may have more than one argument structure, like Frank sneezed the napkin off the table. • Is the distinction between major category information and argument information theory (e.g. GB) specific? Could it be… • If failure of integrating word category information blocks integration of other information, we will never be able to pick up new grammatical use of words and won’t be able to understand sentences like this one “Don’t you try to blue pin me.”

  35. Questions? • All critical words in the experimental item as well as filler items are repeated for 4 times. • Some researchers had found larger N400 for Phrase structure violations • A word may have more than one argument structure, like Frank sneezed the napkin off the table. • Is the distinction between major category information and argument information theory (e.g. GB) specific? Could it be… • If failure of integrating word category information blocks integration of other information, we will never be able to pick up new grammatical use of words and won’t be able to understand sentences like this one “Don’t you try to blue pin me.”

  36. Federmeier, Kara D; Segal, Jessica B; Lombrozo, Tania; Kutas, Marta. Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain. Vol 123(12) Dec 2000, 2552-2566.

  37. Questions? • All critical words in the experimental item as well as filler items are repeated for 4 times. • Some researchers had found larger N400 for Phrase structure violations • A word may have more than one argument structure, like Frank sneezed the napkin off the table. • Is the distinction between major category information and argument information theory (e.g. GB) specific? Could it be… • If failure of integrating word category information blocks integration of other information, we will never be able to pick up new grammatical use of words and won’t be able to understand sentences like this one “Don’t you try to blue pin me.”

  38. Questions? • All critical words in the experimental item as well as filler items are repeated for 4 times. • Some researchers had found larger N400 for Phrase structure violations • A word may have more than one argument structure, like Frank sneezed the napkin off the table. • Is the distinction between major category information and argument information theory (e.g. GB) specific? Could it be… • If failure of integrating word category information blocks integration of other information, we will never be able to pick up new grammatical use of words and won’t be able to understand sentences like this one “Don’t you try to blue pin me.”

  39. Questions? • All critical words in the experimental item as well as filler items are repeated for 4 times. • Some researchers had found larger N400 for Phrase structure violations • A word may have more than one argument structure, like Frank sneezed the napkin off the table. • Is the distinction between major category information and argument information theory (e.g. GB) specific? Could it be… • If failure of integrating word category information blocks integration of other information, we will never be able to pick up new grammatical use of words and won’t be able to understand sentences like this one “Don’t you try to blue pin me.”

  40. Early left anterior negativity Adapted from

More Related