Two Interpretive Systems for Natural Language?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Lyn Frazier (1)
  
  1. University of Massachusetts ; Amherst ; MA ; USA
  
• 关键词：Natural language interpretation ; Speech error reversal ; Mismatch ellipsis ; Syntactic blends ; Acceptable ungrammaticality ; Noisy channel ; Good enough processing
• 刊名：Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：February 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：44
• 期：1
• 页码：7-25
• 全文大小：195 KB
• 参考文献：1. Arregui, A., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided VP s with flawed antecedents. / Journal of Memory and Language, / 55, 232鈥?46. 2006.02.005" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  2. Bemis, D. K., & Pylkk盲nen, L. (2011). Simple composition: An MEG investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases. / Journal of Neuroscience, / 31(8), 2801鈥?814. 2011" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  3. Bever, T. G. (1976). Analogy or ungrammatical sequences that are utterable and comprehensible are the origins of new grammars in language acquisition and language evolution. In T. G. Bever, J. J. Katz, & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), / An integrated theory of linguistic ability (pp. 149鈥?82). New York: T.Y Crowell Press.
  4. Bock, K. (2011). How much correction of syntactic errors are there, anyway? / Language and Linguistics Compass, / 5, 322鈥?35. 2011.00283.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  5. Bolinger, D. (1961). Syntactic blends and other matters. / Language, / 37(3), 366鈥?81. CrossRef
  6. Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. / Brain Research, / 1446, 127鈥?43. 2012.01.055" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  7. Cohen, G. L. (1987). / Syntactic blends in English parole. Frankfurt a. M., Bern, New York: Peter Lang.
  8. Coppock, E. (2006). Alignment in syntactic blending. / MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, / 13, 239鈥?55.
  9. Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (1997). That鈥檚 the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. / Memory and Cognition, / 25(1), 57鈥?1. CrossRef
  10. Doyle, G., & Levy, R. (2012). / Word-order uncertainty induces alternative, non-veridical structures in online comprehension. Poster presented at the 25th annual conference on human sentence processing, March 14鈥?6, New York.
  11. Fay, D. (1982). Substitutions and splices: A study of sentence blends. In A. Cutler (Ed.), / Slips of the tongue and language production. Amsterdam: William De Gruyter/Mouton.
  12. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The 鈥榞ood enough鈥?approach to language comprehension. / Language and Linguistic Compass, / 1, 71鈥?3. 2007.00007.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  13. Fodor, J. D., & Ferreira, F. (1998). / Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRef
  14. Frazier, L. (2008a). Processing ellipsis: A processing solution to the undergeneration problem. In C. Chang & H. Haynie (Eds.), / Proceedings of WCCFL 26, Cascadilla.
  15. Frazier, L. (2008b). Is 鈥楪ood Enough鈥?processing good enough? In L. Arcuri, P. Boscolo, & F. Peresotti (Eds.), / Festschrift in honor of Ino Flores d鈥橝rcais. Padua: University of Padua.
  16. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), / Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  17. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2005). The syntax鈥揹iscourse divide: Processing ellipsis. / Syntax, / 8(2), 121鈥?74. 2005.00077.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  18. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2011a). Quantifiers undone: Reversing predictable speech errors in comprehension. / Language, / 87(1), 158鈥?71. 2011.0024" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  19. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2011b). Dynamic interpretation: Finding an antecedent for VPE. In J. A. Harris & M. Grant (Eds.), / University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics (pp. 23鈥?6).
  20. Frazier, L., & Clifton, Jr., C. (in progress). / Fragment answers to questions: Experimental evidence for inaudible structure.
  21. Frazier, L., & Clifton, Jr., C. (submitted). / Without his shirt off he saved the child from almost drowning: Interpreting uncertain input.
  22. Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1987). Interpreting elliptical VPs. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, / 39A, 611鈥?27. CrossRef
  23. Garrett, M. F. (2000). Remarks on the architecture of language processing systems. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro, & D. Swinney (Eds.), / Language and brain. London: Academic Press.
  24. Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. E. (2009). Linking production and comprehension: The case of relative clauses. / Cognition, / 111(1), 1鈥?3. 2008.12.006" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  25. Giannakidou, A. (1998). / Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridicality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRef
  26. Giannakidou, A. (1999). Affective dependencies. / Linguistics and Philosophy, / 22, 367鈥?21. CrossRef
  27. Gibson, E., & Bergen, L. (2012). / The rational integration of noise and prior semantic expectation. Poster presented at the 25th annual conference on human sentence processing, March 14鈥?6, New York.
  28. Grant, M., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2012). The role of non-actuality implicatures in processing elided constituents. / Journal of Memory and Language, / 66(1), 326鈥?43. 2011.09.003" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  29. Haider, H. (2009). / Is ungrammaticality in the eye of the beholder? University of Amsterdam Workshop, May 19, 2009.
  30. Harris, A., & Samuels, A. (2011). Perception of exuberant exponence in Batsbi: Functional or incidental? / Language, / 87(3), 447鈥?69. 2011.0068" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  31. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). / Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, Inc.
  32. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. (2003). Repair, revision and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. / Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, / 15(1), 98鈥?10. CrossRef
  33. Kawachi, K. (2002). Practice effects in speech production planning: Evidence from slips of the tongue in spontaneous and preplanned speech in Japanese. / Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, / 31, 363鈥?90. CrossRef
  34. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. / Journal of Memory and Language, / 52(2), 205鈥?25. 2004.10.002" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  35. Kim, C. S., Kobele, G. M., Runner, J. T., & Hale, J. T. (2011). The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. / Syntax, / 14, 318鈥?54. 2011.00160.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  36. Langendoen, D. T., & Bever, T. G. (1973). Can a not unhappy man be called a not sad one? In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), / A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 392鈥?09). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
  37. Lees, R. (1961). Grammatical analysis of the English comparative construction. / Word, / 17(2), 171鈥?85.
  38. Levy, R. (2008). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. / EMNLP.
  39. Lewis, C., & Phillips, S. (2014). Aligning Grammatical Theories and Language Processing Models. / J Psycholinguist Res. doi:10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z
  40. Luka, B., & Barsalou, L. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. / Journal of Memory and Language, / 52, 436鈥?59. 2005.01.013" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  41. Mehler, J. (1963). Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences. / Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, / 2, 346鈥?51. CrossRef
  42. Merchant, J. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. / Linguistics and Philosophy, / 27, 661鈥?38. CrossRef
  43. Merchant, J. (2013). Voice and ellipsis. / Linguistic Inquiry, / 44, 77鈥?08. 20" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  44. Merchant, J., Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Weskott, T. (2013). Fragment answers to questions. In L. Goldstein (Ed.), / Short cuts (tentative title). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Otero, C. (1972). Acceptable ungrammatical sentences in Spanish. / Linguistic Inquiry, / 3, 233鈥?42.
  46. Paglia, M. (Ms). / Syntactic blends. UMass undergraduate term paper. (unpublished paper)
  47. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. / Journal of Memory and Language, / 11, 427鈥?56. CrossRef
  48. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. / Brain and Behavior Sciences, / 36(4), 1鈥?4. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001495 .
  49. Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. / The Linguistic Review, / 19, 9鈥?0.
  50. Sag, I. (1976). / Deletion and logical form. MIT doctoral dissertation.
  51. Sag, I., & Hankamer, J. (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. / Linguistics and Philosophy, / 7, 325鈥?45. CrossRef
  52. San Pietro, S., Merchant, J., & Xiang, M. (2012). Accounting for voice mismatch in ellipsis. In / Proceedings of the 30th west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 303鈥?12). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Poster presented at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 30, Santa Cruz, CA.
  53. Sauerland, U., & Yatsushiro, K. (Eds.). (2008). / Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 219鈥?27). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
  54. Schumacher, P. (2013). When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: Toward a new approach of compositionality. / Frontiers in Psychology, / 4, 677. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00677 .
  55. Schwarz, F., & Tiemann, S. (2013). The path of presupposition projection in processing鈥擳he case of conditionals. In E. Chemla, V. Homer & G. Winterstein (Eds.), / Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 17, pp. 527鈥?44).
  56. Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2004). Sentence comprehension in a wider discourse: Can we use ERPs to keep track of things? In M. Carreiras Jr & C. Clifton (Eds.), / The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 229鈥?70). New York: Psychology Press.
  57. Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. / Journal of Memory and Language, / 61, 206鈥?37. 2009.04.002" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  58. Williams, E. (1978). Across-the-board rule application. / Linguistic Inquiry, / 9, 31鈥?4.
  59. Zeijlstra, H. (2007). Doubling: The semantic driving force behind functional categories. / Logic, Language, and Computation, 260鈥?80.
  
• 刊物主题：Psychology, general; Cognitive Psychology; Psycholinguistics;
• 出版者：Springer US
• ISSN：1573-6555

文摘

It is proposed that humans have available to them two systems for interpreting natural language. One system is familiar from formal semantics. It is a type based system that pairs a syntactic form with its interpretation using grammatical rules of composition. This system delivers both plausible and implausible meanings. The other proposed system is one that uses the grammar together with knowledge of how the human production system works. It is token based and only delivers plausible meanings, including meanings based on a repaired input when the input might have been produced as a speech error.