You are granted permission for the non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display, and performance of this technical report in any format. However, this permission is only for a period of 45 (forty-five) days from the most recent time that you verified that this technical report is still available from the Department of Computer Science of the University of Maryland at College Park under terms that include this permission. All other rights are reserved by the author(s).
Minimalist Theory of Human Sentence Processing. Amy Weinberg. October 1998.
Research in the theory of human sentence processing can be characterized by 3 styles of explanation. Researchers taking the first track have tried to motivate principles of structural preference from extralinguistic considerations like storage capacity in working memory, or bounds on complexity of incremental analysis. Frazier and Rayner's (1982) Minimal Attachment and Right Association principles, and Gorrell's simplicity metric, are examples of this type of theory. The second track eschews "parsing st rategies", replacing them with a fairly complex tuning by speaker/hearers to frequency in the hearer's linguistic environment. The difficulty of recovering an analysis of a construction in a particular case is a function of how often similar structures o r thematic role arrays appear in the language as a whole. The work of Trueswell et al (1994), Jurafsky (1996) and MacDonald et al (1994) are examples of frequency or probability based constraint satisfaction theories. The third track takes a more represe ntational view and ties processing principles to independently needed restrictions derived from competence and language learning. This approach claims that the natural language faculty is extremely well designed in the sense that the same set of principl es that govern language learning also contribute to a theory of sentence processing. This track is represented by the work of Gibson (1981), Gorrell (1995) Pritchett (1992), Philips (1995, 1996) and Weinberg (1992), who argue that processing can be seen as the rapid incremental satisfaction of grammatical constraints such as the Theta Criterion, which are needed independently to explain language learning or language variation. A variant of this approach, represented by Crain and Steedman (1985) among ot hers constrains the grammatical source for parsing principles but locates these principles within a discourse or semantic, rather than a syntactic component. This paper proposes a model of the last type. We argue that a particular version of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky (1993), Uriagereka (1998)) provides principles needed to explain both initial human preferences for ambiguous structures and provides a t heory of reanalysis, explaining when initial preferences can be revised given subsequent disconfirming data, and when they lead to unrevisable garden paths. We compare our model to other linguistically motivated theories such as Philips (1995, 1996), ar guing that Minimalist principles subsume the generalizations captured by Philip's theory in a more empirically adequate way. Finally, we argue that the data presented argue for this theory over those motivated by extralinguistic principles. Also cross-referenced as UMIACS-TR-98-53 University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland,
The Linguist and the Laundromat. Amy Weinberg. October 1998.
This paper resulted from a roundtable discussion at the 1998 CUNY Sentence Processing Conference held at Rutgers University. Jerry Fodor (Philosphy, Rutgers University) an argued there that an adequate lexical semantics had to invoke a criterion of Rever se Compositionality. Fodor gives the following definition of 'Reverse Compositionality'(RC): "Nothing belongs to the lexical entry for a lexical item except what that item contributes to the grammatical representation of its hosts" where 'host is defin ed as "any expression E ...of which E is a constituent. " Moreover, Fodor claims that invoking this criterion has broad consequences for theories of language processing and acquisition, particularly with respect to theories that attribute processing beha vior to "lexical effects. Fodor claims that "...most of what cognitive science blithely refers to as lexical effects in parsing and language learning aren't in fact mediated by information of the kind that lexical entries contain...." and "... that language acquisition delivers sh allow lexical entries consonant with reverse compositionality, and that parsing delivers correspondingly shallow lexical entries consonant with assigning tokens to their types, and that everything else will turn out to be 'performance theory' ... In this paper, I argue that frequency and other standard lexical processing effects can form a legitimate part of a theory of sentence processing even if it adopts the criterion of "reverse compositionaliy". Cases drawn from the literature are used to s ketch what a theory adopting Fodor's criterion and using frequency and/or probabalistic information would look like. This commentary will appear in Proceedings of CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, 1998, S. Stevenson and P. Merlo, eds, J. Benjami ns.. Also cross-referenced as UMIACS-TR-98-52 University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland,
Last Generated Fri Aug 11 04:01:01 EDT 2000