Most current models of sentence comprehension assume that the human parsing mechanism (HPM) algorithmically computes detailed syntactic representations as basis for extracting sentence meaning. These models share the assumption that the representations computed by the HPM accurately reflect the linguistic input. This assumption has been challenged by Ferreira (2003), who showed that comprehenders sometimes misinterpret unambiguous sentences in which subject and object appear in noncanonical order, such as passives or object-clefts. According to Ferreira, these misinterpretations show that parallel to an algorithmic analysis, the HPM performs a heuristic analysis sometimes resulting in interpretations not licensed by the grammar. Our study investigated whether misinterpretation effects indeed reflect an erroneous mapping of form to meaning due to heuristic processing strategies. Using an experimental design closely following Ferreira (2003), Experiment 1 demonstrates that errors with noncanonical sentences show up in German as well, despite the fact that German provides morphological case, which a heuristic strategy should use. Experiment 2 required participants to judge the plausibility of the same sentences. With this task, no evidence for misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences was found. Taken together, our results suggest that misinterpretation errors do not reflect errors in the mapping of form to meaning, but task-specific difficulties that arise when participants retrieve information from the memory representation of a sentence. Consequently, misinterpretation errors do not provide evidence for the claim that the HPM pursues a heuristic analysis in addition to an algorithmic analysis. Our results instead lend support to models of the HPM that assume algorithmic processing only. (PsycINFO Database Record

In German, oblique Cases (dative and genitive) require morphological licensing while structural Cases (nominative and accusative) do not. This difference can be captured by assuming that in German, NPs bearing oblique Case have an extra structural layer Kase phrase (KP) which is missing in NPs bearing structural Case. Focusing on dative NPs, we will show that the postulation of such a phrase-structural difference between oblique and structural case allows for a unified explanation of a wide array of facts both from the domain of grammar and from the domain of language comprehension. First, with regard to grammar, several asymmetries between dative NPs and nominative/accusative NPs follow if the former but not the latter are included within a KP-shell, including asymmetries with respect to function changing operations, clausal licensing, binding and topic drop, among others. Corroborating evidence for our analysis of dative Case in German will be provided by a comparison with data from English and Dutch. Second, when combined with certain independent assumptions about the human sentence parsing mechanism, the postulation of a KP for datives helps explain several recent experimental f'mdings with respect to on-line sentence understanding, including the facts that dative case is dispreferred in situations of local syntactic ambiguity and that dative case may erroneously override structural case during sentence comprehension but not vice versa.The work underlying this article has been supported by a grant by the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (Ba-1178/4-1) to the first and second investigator and to Jens-Max Hopf. Part of the results were presented 1998 at a workshop of the Sonderforschungsbereich Theorie des Lexikons at the University of Cologne and at the Workshop on Morphological Case at the University of Utrecht. We wish to thank both audiences for stimulating discussion, especially Denis Bouchard, Lyn Nichols, Albert Ortmann and Dieter Wunderlich. Thanks to Peter Suchsland and Ralf Vogel far clarifying discussion, to Susanne Trissler for a number of suggestions as well as to Frans Hinskens, Henk van Riemsdijk. Manrice Vliegen and Jan-Wouter Zwart for their help with the Dutch data and L~iszl6 Moln~rfi for his help

No abstract

The results of three experiments are reported which investigated the processing of locally ambiguous object-subject sentences in German. These sentences are known to elicit garden-path effects because the parser initially prefers the assignment of a subject-object structure (e.g., Schriefers, Friederici, Kühn, 1995). The aim of the experiments was to test whether the type of grammatical information that signals the garden-path (the mode of disambiguation)has an impact on how difficult it is to arrive at the correct structural assignment. We exploited the fact that subject-object ambiguities in German can be disambiguated in two different ways: by agreement or by case. If disambiguation concerning the relative order of subject and object is provided by the number features of the finite verb (agreement disambiguation) a robust garden-path effect results. In contrast, if the disambiguating information is provided by a second NP morphologically marked for nominative, the resulting garden-path effect is weak. This finding poses difficulty for models of reanalysis which relate garden-path strength to revision cost because the revision operations necessary to transform the subject-object structure initially computed into an object-subject structure are the same for both modes of disambiguation.Our results show that different modes of disambiguation can be more or less effective in signaling how to come out of the garden-path, a conclusionin accordance with the diagnosis model of reanalysis as first proposed in Fodor and Inoue (1994).

Abstract• In an ERP stud\', German sentences were investigated that contain a case-ambiguous ;\IP that mav be assigned accusative or dative case. Sentences were disambiguated by the "erb in final position of the sentence. As our data show. sentences ending in a verb that assigns dative case to the ambiguous NP elicit a clear garden-path effect The garden-path effect was indicated by a broad centro-posterior negative shift that occurred between 300 and 900 msec after the dative-assigning verb was presented.~o enhanced P600 following the misanalysis was observed,~oun phrases whose case ambiguity was resolved in favor of accusative case and unambiguouslv dativemarked NPs did not trigger significant ERP differences. We will discuss the implications of our results for parsing and its

This article addresses the question of whether the human parsing mechanism (HPM) derives sentence meaning always from representations that are computed algorithmically or whether the HPM sometimes resorts to non-algorithmic strategies that may result in misinterpretations. Misinterpretation effects for noncanonical sentences, such as passives, constitute important evidence in favour of models allowing for nonveridical representations. However, it is unclear whether these effects reflect errors in the mapping of form to meaning, or difficulties specific to the procedure used to test comprehension. We report two experiments combining two different comprehension tasks to address these alternative possibilities. In Experiment 1, participants first judged the plausibility of canonical and noncanonical sentences and then named the agent or patient of the sentence. In Experiment 2, the order of the two tasks was reversed. Both tasks require the correct identification of agent or patient/theme, but differ regarding the complexity of operations required to complete the task successfully. In both experiments, participants made a substantial number of errors with agent/patient naming, even when they had correctly assessed sentence plausibility. We conclude that misinterpretation effects do not indicate parsing errors and therefore cannot serve as evidence for non-algorithmic processing. Our results support models of the HPM that assume algorithmic processing only.

The success of an application programming interface (API) crucially depends on how well its documentation meets the information needs of software developers. Previous research suggests that these information needs have not been sufficiently understood. This article presents the results of a series of semistructured interviews and a follow-up questionnaire conducted to explore the learning goals and learning strategies of software developers, the information resources they turn to and the quality criteria they apply to API documentation. Our results show that developers initially try to form a global understanding regarding the overall purpose and main features of an API, but then adopt either a concepts-oriented or a code-oriented learning strategy that API documentation both needs to address. Our results also show that general quality criteria such as completeness and clarity are relevant to API documentation as well. Developing and maintaining API documentation therefore need to involve the expertise of communication professionals.

No abstract