PS2111-Sentence-Parsing-Comprehension-2023.pptx

Understanding the Structure & Meaning of Sentences Kevin Paterson [email protected] School of Psychology University of Leicester https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/npb/people/kbp3 Topics: o Evidence for structural principles in sentence processing? o Is there a role for Referential context in sentence pr...

Understanding the Structure & Meaning of Sentences Kevin Paterson [email protected] School of Psychology University of Leicester https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/npb/people/kbp3 Topics: o Evidence for structural principles in sentence processing? o Is there a role for Referential context in sentence processing? o Do children and adults employ the same processing strategies? o Evidence for structural principles in sentence processing? What is syntax?  Do the following statements make sense?  The dog bit the man  Dog man the the bit  Readers (and listeners) have implicit understanding of rules governing permissible word order in their native language.  Syntax refers to these rules of word What is parsing?  Individual words belong to grammatical category (e.g. noun, verb, adjective, determiner).  Syntactic structure describes the grammatical composition of sentence.  Parsing / syntactic processing describes process of computing syntactic structure. Syntactic structure sentenc e verbphrase nounphrase determin er The nou n dog ver b bit nounphrase determin er the nou n man What is syntax?  Do the following statements make sense?  The dog bit the man  Dog man the the bit  Readers (and listeners) have implicit understanding of rules governing permissible word order in their native language.  Syntax refers to these rules of word o Anything striking about the following sentences? o “Visiting relatives can be boring.” o “Flying planes can be dangerous.” Sentence Ambiguity o Sentences are sometimes “globally” ambiguous. “Participial phrase” analysis: the relatives who visit are boring. o “Visiting relatives can be boring.” “Gerund phrase” analysis: the act of visiting relatives can be boring. Sentence Ambiguity o Sentences are frequently “locally” ambiguous. o We analysis sentences roughly a word at a time. o Therefore, local ambiguity can be a considerable source of difficulty in reading. Stops making sense task o You will see a sentence a phrase at a time. o Raise your hands when you think it stops making sense. Example #1 o The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. Example #1 o The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. Example #1 o The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. Example #1 o The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. Example #1 o The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. Example #1 “Main clause” analysis: what the horse was doing. o The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. “Relative clause” analysis: which horse the sentence is about. Example #2 o Put the frog on the napkin in the box. Example #2 o Put the frog on the napkin in the box. Example #2 o Put the frog on the napkin in the box. Example #2 o Put the frog on the napkin in the box. Example #2 “Main clause” destination reading. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. “Relative clause” modifier interpretation. How to assess sentence processing o “Stops making sense” task provides a good indication of readers’ sensitivity to ambiguity. o Other methods involve measuring time taken to make judgements about sentence acceptability and time taken to read portions of text. o Other methods involve studying eye movements during reading or in visual world paradigm. Methods: Grammaticality decision task  Sentence viewed one word or phrase at a time  Participant makes sequence of judgements about grammatical acceptability of sentence  However, explicit grammatical decisions are not made during normal reading. Methods: Self-paced reading task  Sentence viewed one word or phrase at a time.  Participant indicate that they have read and understood each word or phrase.  Self-paced judgements slow reading rate.  Text presentation is not natural. Methods: Eye movements while reading  Eye movements recorded as participants read sentences.  Allows examination of moment-by-moment processes in reading without secondary task. Methods: EEG while listening/reading Theories of syntactic processing o Accounts that disallow extra-syntactic influences – Garden Path theory o Accounts that allow / encourage extrasyntactic influences – Referential theory / Constraint-based theories. Garden path theory  e.g., Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Rayner, Carlson & Frazier, 1983  Initial parsing decisions depend on: - Syntactic knowledge - Two parsing principles:  Minimal attachment  Late closure  Extra-syntactic knowledge does not influence initial parsing decisions. Minimal Attachment o The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. o Put the frog on the napkin in the box.  Two options: A Analyse ambiguity as main clause. B Analyse ambiguity as relative clause. Option A has simpler syntactic structure than B. Minimal attachment requires that readers initially adopt the analysis of an ambiguity that has the simplest structure. o Is there a role for Referential context in sentence processing? o Some evidence that prior referential context can reduce or eliminate garden path effect by biasing reader towards adopting dis-preferred analysis. o Other evidence that visual context can have similar effect. o See Altmann, 1998, for discussion o An example story: There were two horses running in the field. One ran towards the paddocks. The other ran past the farmhouse. The horse raced past the farmhouse stumbled and fell. o When relative clause required to disambiguate referent of “the horse”, sentence is less difficult to process (see Altmann, 1989). o Do children and adults employ the same processing strategies? Visual World Task o Participants view simple visual scene while their eye movements are recorded. o Is there a role for Referential context in sentence processing? o Do children and adults employ the same processing strategies? Trueswell et al. (1999). Children and adults presented with different scenarios and asked to respond to spoken instructions – Children aged from 4-6 years. The “one frog” condition. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. The “one frog” condition. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. The “one frog” condition. Where? Put the frog on the napkin in the box. The “one frog” condition. Where? Put the frog on the napkin in the box. The “one frog” condition. Where? Put the frog on the napkin in the box. The “two frog” condition. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. Principle of Referential “If there is a reading that succeeds in referring to an Success entity already established in the hearer’s mental model of the domain of discourse, then it is favored over one that does not.” (Crain & Steedman, 1985) – Two-frog condition: only the modifier reading refers to a unique referent, and so this interpretation should be adopted. the frog: does not succeed in referring. the frog on the napkin: does succeed! ADULTS The “two frog” condition. Adults use modifier analysis of ambiguity to determine which frog is referred to. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. ADULTS The “two frog” condition. They move this frog to the correct destination. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. CHILDREN The “two frog” condition. They move this frog to the correct destination on only approximately 40% of trials. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. CHILDREN’ ERRORS 1 The “two frog” condition. They move the wrong frog. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. CHILDREN’ ERRORS 2 The “two frog” condition. They move the frog to the wrong destination. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. CHILDREN’ ERRORS 3 The “two frog” condition. They take 2 moves to get it right. Put the frog on the napkin in the box. Interpreting the findings Trueswell at al. (1999): – Young children are unable to exploit the referential context under certain processing conditions. Hurewitz et al. (2000): – Children’s failure to use the referential context is specific to the comprehension process. Children produce modified NPs in felicitous contexts. Summary Ambiguity is ubiquitous in sentence processing. Human sentence processor must learn to resolve ambiguity efficiently. Theories differ over the role of syntactic principles, referential context, and other factors in resolving ambiguity. A range of methods, including the visual world paradigm, are instructive about processes involved in ambiguity resolution by children and adults. Further Reading Altmann, G. T. M. (1989). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 146-152. Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. & Trueswell, J. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 597-626. Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill, & Logrip (1999). The kindergarten path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89-134. http://personal.maccs.mq.edu.au/~scrain/