DMCA
Processing Polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical
| Citations: | 15 - 8 self |
BibTeX
@MISC{Vasishth_processingpolarity:,
author = {Shravan Vasishth and Sven Brüssow and Richard L. Lewis and Heiner Drenhaus},
title = { Processing Polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical},
year = {}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
A central question in online human sentence comprehension is: how are linguistic relations established between different parts of a sentence? Previous work has shown that this dependency resolution process can be computationally expensive, but the underlying reasons for this are still unclear. We argue that dependency resolution is mediated by cue-based retrieval, constrained by independently motivated working memory principles defined in a cognitive architecture (ACT-R). To demonstrate this, we investigate an unusual instance of dependency resolution, the processing of negative and positive polarity items, and confirm a surprising prediction of the cue-based retrieval model: partial cue-matches—which constitute a kind of similarity-based interference—can give rise to the intrusion of ungrammatical retrieval candidates, leading to both processing slow-downs and even errors of judgment that take the form of illusions of grammaticality in patently ungrammatical structures. A notable achievement is that good quantitative fits are achieved without adjusting the key model parameters.
Keyphrases
ungrammatical intrudes dependency resolution cue-based retrieval memory principle unusual instance surprising prediction ungrammatical retrieval candidate even error dependency resolution process underlying reason notable achievement good quantitative fit partial cue-matches linguistic relation previous work positive polarity item similarity-based interference ungrammatical structure different part central question cognitive architecture cue-based retrieval model online human sentence comprehension key model parameter
