Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Information One method of determining the correct attachment points for a prepositional phrase is to use some kind of syntactic rule based system. Various structural rules have been proposed as the basis for decisions about attachment and other local syntactic ambiguities, such as Late Closure [Fra78] Minimal Attachment [Fra78] and Verb Dominance [Kim73] 2.1.1 Late Closure The strategy of Late Closure predicts that, wherever possible, an item will be attached to the constituent currently being processed [Fra85] in other words that constituents will be closed as late as possible, and that ....

....determining the correct attachment points for a prepositional phrase is to use some kind of syntactic rule based system. Various structural rules have been proposed as the basis for decisions about attachment and other local syntactic ambiguities, such as Late Closure [Fra78] Minimal Attachment [Fra78] and Verb Dominance [Kim73] 2.1.1 Late Closure The strategy of Late Closure predicts that, wherever possible, an item will be attached to the constituent currently being processed [Fra85] in other words that constituents will be closed as late as possible, and that attachment will take place ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

L. Frazier. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1978.

.... attachments by using a machine learning algorithm based on recursive neural networks [6] They demonstrate that after training on a small corpus of 500 parsed sentences, the accuracy of prediction significantly outperforms common linguistic heuristics such as late closure and minimal attachment [7]. Moreover, the model effectively reproduces well known cognitive phenomena such as recency attachment for adverbs, relative clauses in English, closure ambiguities, and preference for NP over S in complement ambiguities [11] The model proposed in [2] is briefly sketched in the next section. In ....

....of the kind of statistics that the network is really employing. 4. 4 Linguistic heuristics Psycholinguistic studies suggest that the syntactic module of the human parser expresses some structural preferences among which the minimal attachment (MA) preference and the late closure (LC) preference ([7]) MA implies that humans tend to prefer simpler and shorter analyses (i.e. connection paths with fewer nodes) LC, instead, suggests that, a preference is expressed to connect the current analyses with recently processed material (i.e. low attachment anchor points are preferred) In Fig.1 we ....

L. Frazier, On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 1978.

....based on the meaning of its parts. Furthermore, all theories assume that this process generates complete, detailed, and accurate representations of the linguistic input. Models of Sentence Processing Two approaches to sentence processing that have been widely contrasted are the gardenpath model (Frazier, 1979; Ferreira Clifton, 1986) and the constraint satisfaction model (MacDonald, Pearlmutter, Seidenberg, 1994; Trueswell, Tanenhaus, Kello, 1993) According to the garden path account, the language processor initially computes a single syntactic analysis without consideration of context or ....

Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

....we expect to observe constituency conflicts, and where we do not expect to find them. Finally, it should be noted that incremental left to right structure building is a process that is already well motivated from experimental studies of language production and comprehension (Marslen Wilson, 1975; Frazier, 1978; Levelt, 1989; Tanenhaus et al. 1995; Ferreira, 1997) An incremental left to right structure building mechanism is therefore a necessary component of the language faculty, independent of the grammatical considerations raised here. It should also be noted that the non incrementality of standard ....

Frazier, Lyn. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.

....of the sentence as the object of the verb hunted, when ultimately it must serve instead as the subject of the matrix clause verb ran, and the subordinate verb hunted must in fact be intransitive. 2) While the man hunted the deer ran into the woods The garden path model of sentence comprehension (Frazier Fodor, 1978; Frazier Rayner, 1982) provides an account of how the deer is initially attached. The principle of Late Closure holds that, when allowed by the syntax, incoming material is attached inside the clause or phrase currently being processed. This principle, then, prohibits the deer from being ....

....misanalysis in addition to general inference. Finally, we investigated how the pragmatic plausibility of the initial misinterpretation might influence the ultimate comprehension of the garden path sentences (Abney, 1988; Crain Steedman, 1985; De Vincenzi Job, 1993; Ferreira Clifton, 1986; Frazier, 1978; Pickering Traxler, 1998; Rayner, Garrod, Perfetti, 1992; Spivey Knowlton Sedivy, 1995; Stowe, 1989) Sentences were written so that (for example) the deer was either running into the woods or pacing in the zoo (see Table 1) In the latter case, it is much less likely that the man is ....

Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies.

....but it could also simply indicate that violating locality is more costly than reanalysis. From the perspective of a serial model of parsing, RALR is straightforward to implement computationally, and it has therefore been a convenient and widespread assumption in serial models of parsing (Frazier 1978, Frazier Clifton, 1996; Gorrell, 1998; Sturt Crocker, 1996) On the other hand, in parallel and activation based models it is relatively easy to model the re ranking of alternatives, and thus parallel models have more commonly assumed that RALR does not hold (Gibson, 1991; Stevenson, 1994b; ....

Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Connecticut.

.... access were all serial, including lexical models like ordered access (Hogaboam Perfetti 1975) models of idiom access like the idiom list hypothesis (Bobrow Bell 1973) and the direct access hypothesis (Gibbs 1984) and syntactic algorithms like PARSIFAL (Marcus 1980) and the Sausage Machine (Frazier Fodor 1978). For example, in the idiom list hypothesis, idioms are stored in a separate idiom dictionary, and are accessed when the computation of literal meanings for a string fails, while the direct access model of idiom access proposes just the opposite: idiomatic meaning is accessed first, and literal ....

....(Crain Steedman 1985; Kurtzman 1985; Altmann 23 Steedman 1988; Charniak Goldman 1988) to choose among structures. The syntactic heuristic models use a simple syntactic heuristic or combination of heuristics such as choose the syntactically simplest interpretation (Kimball 1973; Frazier Fodor 1978; Wanner 1980; Shieber 1983; Pereira 1985; Kaplan 1972; Cottrell 1985) to rank structures. Neither the global nor the simple structural models can account for the entire range of psycholinguistic data on human parsing. Thus after discussing the problems with them in detail, we present the local ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

FRAZIER, LYN, 1978. On comprehending sentences: syntactic parsing strategies. Connecticut: University of Connecticut dissertation. Dissertation distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.

.... This conservative approach is justified if syntax is just the early stage of a more complex analysis, and further steps (possibly involving semantics) are foreseen 1 # ffl To produce a unique interpretation, either by relying on some general linguistic principle (e.g. minimal attachment,[Frazier 1979]) or heuristics (for example, retain the first analysis only , or weight alternatives and select only the best one(s) Although this could appear more arbitrary, it is usually necessary in several tasks, where computational efficiency is more important than precision# ffl To mix the two ....

Frazier L. On comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD Thesis. Universitry of Massachusetts, 1979. 16

.... Johnson 1991) In this paper we describe a solution to the problem of parsing left embedding structures, by introducing the notion of Minimal Recursive Structure (henceforth MRS) The solution relies on the notion of minimum effort, and is related to the well known Minimal Attachment principle (Frazier, 1978). An MRS is a left descendent chain of nodes where there are no two nodes of the same category. Intuitively, it represents the minimal unit of left recursion. To connect the current input word to the syntactic structure, the parser builds an MRS (which only requires finite time) if the subsequent ....

Frazier, L. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.

....know that dogs should play. 36) a. I saw her duck fly away. Pritchett, 1992) b. I saw her duck into an alleyway. 37) a. I went to the store. b. I went to the store and the barber. Other examples of impossible to repair structures include: 38) Without her contributions failed to come in. (Frazier, 1978) (39) Sue gave the man who was racing the car. Pritchett, 1992) 40) The cotton clothing is made of grows in Mississippi. Marcus, 1980) 41) Before she knew that she went to the store. 42) That coffee tastes terrible surprised John. Gibson, 1991) The structures in (39) and (41) are ....

Frazier, L. 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.

....of alternatives and to yield the correct analysis for a given sentence as efficiently and parsimoniously as possible. For instance, preferred analyses can be derived from specific attachment constraints like the Minimal Attachment and Late Closure strategies in the sequential model defended by Frazier 1978, or from a given complexity metrics via a ranking mechanism, as suggested by Gibson 1991. Just like Frazier s and Gibson s models, the interactive parsing model under development at the LATL relies on limited non determinism. However, it differs from Frazier s processing model in its objectives, ....

....3 (3)a. tous: Det, DP [ definite, plural] b. avoir: Aux, VP [ Gammafinite, past] 3.1.2 Subcategorized complement vs. non attachment The well known case of attachment ambiguity illustrated in (4) has often been discussed as a typical case of Right Association (Kimball 1973) of Late Closure (Frazier 1978), or as a supporting evidence for the look ahead mechanism (Marcus 1980) among others: 4)a. While John was mending the sock fell off his lap. b. VP mending [ DP the sock ] c. VP mending] TP [ DP the sock ] According to the various strategies proposed ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Frazier, L. 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies, Ph.D. dissertation, UMass.

....adult processing to resolve structural ambiguity. Introduction Models of human language comprehension have traditionally focused on discrete linguistic properties structural or interpretive factors as the guiding influence in determining the preferred interpretation of an ambiguity (e.g. [8, 18]) Theories of human sentence processing that are founded on such linguistic distinctions have generally assumed that their use is an inherent (and universal) property of the language processor. Even if certain distinctions must be learned (such as those that involve parametric variation among ....

Lyn Frazier. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, 1978. Available through the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.

....exhibit the same structural ambiguity, the first is a classic garden path, while the second is readily understood. Pure structure based accounts rely on the greater complexity of the reduced relative construction to explain its unacceptability in the first sentence (e.g. Frazier and Fodor, 1978; Frazier, 1978; Ferreira and Clifton, 1986) but are unable to account for the ease of the second sentence. Similarly, grammar based accounts proposed by Pritchett (1992) and Gibson (1991) have claimed that the optional intransitivity of raced is the factor causing difficulty in sentence (1) but this also ....

....the syntactic structure of verbal projections. Although it assumes that structure building is one of the causes of processing complexity, it contrasts with previous structurebased proposals which rely on only general syntactic information (e.g. Ferreira and Clifton, 1986; Frazier and Fodor, 1978; Frazier, 1978). The approach here also suggests a finergrained lexical distinction than the simple obligatorily vs. optionally transitive contrast called on by Gibson (1991) and Pritchett (1992) Constraint based models put forward to explain the differential difficulty of reduced relative clauses downplay the ....

Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Ph. D.

....parser with other non syntactic types of information (e.g. semantics, pragmatics, intonation etc. Hence the name two stage models (e.g. Mitchell (1994) This type of models is hypothesised to operate according to a number of structural principles, such as Late Closure and Minimal Attachment (Frazier, 1979) or the Canonical Sentoid Strategy (Bever, 1970) that perform ambiguity resolution regardless of the specific lexical content of the sentence. This predicts that a re analysis will have to be performed in many cases, after more detailed information has become available. In lexically richer models ....

Frazier, L. 1979. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph.d thesis, University of Connecticut.

.... (cf. Clifton, Frazier Rayner 1983, Clifton Speer Abney 1991) Speakers reliably prefer the VP attached interpretation of (2a) 3 Among the family of proposals which we group under the heading Local Attachment Preference we include Right Association (Kimball 1973, Phillips 1995) Late Closure (Frazier 1978), Recency (Gibson 1991, Gibson et al. in press) Attach Low (Abney 1989) Minimal Connections (Fodor and Frazier 1983) These proposals differ with regard to whether locality is defined in terms of terminal strings, tree geometry or grammatical attachment sites. The differences among these various ....

....must be additional factors influencing the preferences speakers show in examples like (2a e) Moreover, these other factors must be stronger than the Local Attachment Preference. The literature contains a number of proposals about what these other factors might be include Minimal Attachment (Frazier 1978, 1987) argument attachment preferences (Ford et al. 1982; Pritchett 1988, 1992; Abney 1989; Gibson 1991; Sch tze Gibson 1996) discourse accommodation (Crain Steedman 1985, Altmann Steedman 1988, Percus 1995) frequency (Spivey Knowlton Sedivy 1995) The other piece of the locality ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Frazier, L. (1978) On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.

No context found.

Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

No context found.

L. Frazier. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, 1979.

No context found.

Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: syntactic parsing strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

No context found.

L. Frazier, "On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 1978.

No context found.

Frazier, L., 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

No context found.

L. Frazier, On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 1978.

No context found.

Frazier, L. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD. disser- tation, University of Connecticut.

No context found.

Frazier, Lyn. 1994a. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

No context found.

Frazier, L. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

No context found.

Lyn Frazier (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC