书目名称 | Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing | 编辑 | Marica Vincenzi,Vincenzo Lombardo | 视频video | http://file.papertrans.cn/241/240356/240356.mp4 | 丛书名称 | Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics | 图书封面 |  | 描述 | Recent studies in psycho linguistics have ranged through a variety of languages. In this trend, which has no precedent, studies in language processing have followed studies in language acquisition and theoretical linguistics in considering language universals in a broader scope than only in English. Since the beginning of the century, studies in language acquisition have produced a vast body of data from a number of Indoeuropean languages, and the emphasis on the universal has preceded the emphasis on the particular (see (Slobin 1985) for a review). Nowadays, the research in the field advances by means of a continuous linking between the cross-linguistic uniformities and the individual language influences on development. The level of language universals is continuously refined as the data from a number of languages contribute to the elaboration of a more distinctive picture of the language of children. The first cross-linguistic studies in theoretical linguistics appeared at the end of the seventies. Within the Chomskian paradigm, the reference to the Romance languages caused a shift from a rule-based toward a principle-based formalism (Chomsky 1981, 1995); within alternative theor | 出版日期 | Book 2000 | 关键词 | Parsing; language; linguistics; psycholinguistics | 版次 | 1 | doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3949-6 | isbn_softcover | 978-1-4020-0292-2 | isbn_ebook | 978-94-011-3949-6Series ISSN 1873-0043 Series E-ISSN 2215-1788 | issn_series | 1873-0043 | copyright | Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000 |
1 |
Front Matter |
|
|
Abstract
|
2 |
,Introduction, |
Marica De Vincenzi,Vincenzo Lombardo |
|
Abstract
Recent studies in psycholinguistics have ranged through a variety of languages. In this trend, which has no precedent, studies in language processing have followed studies in language acquisition and theoretical linguistics in considering language universals in a broader scope than only in English.
|
3 |
,Garden Path Re-Analysis: Attach (Anyway) and Revision as Last Resort, |
Janet Dean Fodor,Atsu Inoue |
|
Abstract
The human sentence processing device sometimes makes errors, and when it does, it can sometimes correct them. This much is generally agreed, though opinions differ with respect to how and why the errors occur. In this paper we are concerned with the process of recovery from garden paths in sentence processing. A garden path occurs when the parser makes an error in assigning structure to the input word string but is nevertheless able to continue integrating some subsequent words into the structure that it has constructed for the sentence so far (the current partial phrase marker, or CPPM). Recognition that a garden path has occurred comes from the subsequent discovery that there is a word in the input string which does not fit into the CPPM. This word is the error signal, or ., that reveals the existence of the earlier error of analysis. The parser’s task is to discover the nature of the problem and put it right if possible. The input may actually be ungrammatical, in which case nothing can be done. But the parser must also consider the possibility that it is the analysis that is at fault: that some aspect of the CPPM prior to the symptom is incorrect. Recovery from a garden path co
|
4 |
,Lowering across Languages, |
Robert Frank,K. Vijay-Shanker |
|
Abstract
The contrast in processing difficulty among different cases of local ambiguity has often been captured in terms of the type of re-analysis that is required. Of particular importance has been the distinction between lowering and raising of a constituent from the position in which it is attached originally, raising being the more costly operation and therefore producing conscious garden path effects. Unfortunately, this simple dichotomy has proven insufficient to capture the ease of resolving a range of cases of local ambiguity: many cases, which ought to be resolvable by lowering, yield garden path effects. In this paper, we focus on an apparent contrast in lowering possibilities between English and Japanese. We show how by adopting the structural relation of c-command as the primitive used by the parser to characterize structural relations, we can account for these contrasts without resorting to positing distinct parsing strategies in the two languages. Instead, the use of c-command enables us to derive the apparent parsing differences from independently necessary grammatical differences. Finally, the use of c-command as a parsing primitive provides, we believe, a way to bring toge
|
5 |
,Cross-Linguistic Studies of the Late Closure Strategy: French and Italian, |
Thierry Baccino,Marica De Vincenzi,Remo Job |
|
Abstract
The issue of the universality of parsing strategies is a central one in a theory of sentence processing, and addressing this issue crucially requires cross-linguistic data. While the need for cross-linguistic research has been argued about for a long time, and pioneering work has been done in this field (e.g. MacWhinney, Bates and Kliegl 1984), recently there has been increasing awareness that in order to yield significant and productive generalizations it is necessary to identify and clearly specify the level at which the comparison among language structures is to be performed.
|
6 |
,Resolving Syntactic Ambiguities: Cross-Linguistic Differences?, |
Cheryl Frenck-Mestre,Joel Pynte |
|
Abstract
The present study is an attempt to discover some of the factors which influence readers’ comprehension when faced with several possible interpretations of a sentence, and whether any universal account can be postulated for this process across, if not all, at least closely related languages. This issue has indeed been the object of considerable debate (cf. Cuetos, Mitchell & Corely, 1996; Frazier & Clifton, 1996; Gibson, Pearlmutter, Canseco-Gonzales & Hickok, 1996, MacDonald, Pearlmutter & Seidenberg, 1994; for recent discussions).
|
7 |
,Architectures and Mechanisms for Sentence Processing: Is Syntactic Parsing a Form of Lexical Ambigu |
Matthew J. Traxler,Martin J. Pickering,Charles Clifton Jr.,Roger van Gompel |
|
Abstract
Some accounts of syntactic parsing propose that readers and listeners determine a sentence’s syntactic structure in much the same way that they determine the meaning of a word (MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994). Namely, they recover information from a mental lexicon that describes what syntactic structures are permissible and preferred. MacDonald et al. note (p. 692), “…recent types of theorizing eliminate the strong distinction between accessing a meaning and constructing a syntactic representation, an idea which was central to previous accounts.” Other accounts of syntactic parsing propose that readers and listeners consult grammatical principles and guide their syntactic structure-building decisions by determining (at least) the lexical categories of the words in the sentence (e.g., Frazier, 1979, 1987; Frazier & Clifton, 1996). In this chapter, we will contrast these different accounts by describing three dimensions on which they differ and by examining their compatibility with the empirical record.
|
8 |
,The Role of Case and Number Features in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution, |
Michael Meng,Markus Bader |
|
Abstract
Syntactic representations contain two kinds of information: information about phrase-structural relations and information about the distribution of syntactic features within the phrase-structure tree. Parsing theory has concentrated on the computation of phrase-structural relations during processing. Although syntactic features like case and number often play an important role in experimental investigations, for example for creating unambiguous control conditions, the representation and processing of these features has rarely been an issue.
|
9 |
,A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Discourse Context and Syntactic Processing in Language Production |
Holly P. Branigan,Mercè Prat-Sala |
|
Abstract
Communication is a co-operative process. The speaker’s purpose is to convey some information to the listener. The listener’s task is to extract this information and integrate it with existing knowledge. Although considerable progress has been made in studying the listener and the mechanisms responsible for information extraction and integration, much less is known about the mechanisms which underlie the speaker’s production of language. In particular, much of the existing evidence is limited to the production of isolated sentences. This chapter is, like Heydel and Murray’s chapter (this volume), concerned with the way in which previous context can affect syntactic processing during cross-linguistic language production. Our particular focus is on the relationship between features of the discourse context and the syntactic structure that a speaker assigns to a sentence. We will be especially concerned with the relationship between pragmatic theories and processing theories, and whether processing mechanisms which have been proposed for the production of isolated sentences can also account for context effects in production.
|
10 |
,Conceptual Effects in Sentence Priming: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, |
Maren Heydel,Wayne S. Murray |
|
Abstract
It is now well established that the production (or perception) of one sentence is capable of increasing the probability that the speaker will subsequently produce another utterance of the same or a related type. This phenomenon, which we shall refer to as’ sentence level priming’, has generally been taken to reflect a facilitation of syntactic processes and/or representations as a result of their repeated occurrence. Whilst it is clear that various conceptual features of the utterance also play a role in the production process, it has generally been concluded (e.g. Bock 1986; Bock, Loebell, & Morey 1992) that these do not underlie the priming phenomenon and that they exert independent additive effects on the likelihood of production of a particular sentence type.
|
11 |
Back Matter |
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|