Mode of Disambiguation and Garden-Path Strength: An Investigation of Subject-Object Ambiguities in German

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).

No case for Case in locality: Case does not help interpretation when intervention blocks A-bar chains

“…Our approach is compatible with the possibility that, for adults, overt Case marking of the object could facilitate the parsing of object A-bar dependencies. This has been shown to happen for instance in the disambiguation by Case of object Wh-questions in German speaking adults (Meng & Bader 2000). In the approach we have presented here, once the intervention configuration is properly mastered, and hence the object A-bar chain is constructed, the necessary prerequisite to interpret the sentence is met.…”

An anterior–posterior gradient of cognitive control within the dorsomedial striatum

“…Thus after encountering the local unexpectedness, the first steps are to detect the reason that processing went wrong, and to establish whether the sentence is outright ungrammatical or amenable to successful reanalysis. The next step entails the requisite revised parsing (applicable only to ambiguous structures) to achieve a legitimate sentence representation (Meng and Bader, 2000b). Finally, a fourth filler condition was also introduced, featuring ungrammatical sentences with a feminine first NP.…”

Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities

“…In their model, diagnosis happens as a step-by-step backtracking through grammatical dependencies in the incorrect partial parse tree, which if successful leads to a cost-free ''cure'' (functions B and C) of the incorrect parse. The theory explicitly claims that reanalysis difficulty arises in function A-not B or C. The evidence used to support this model come from manipulations of the disambiguating region (the diagnosis ''cue''), which can make a given misanalyzed ambiguity either easy or difficult to diagnose and thus repair (see also Meng & Bader (2000)). There are both important commonalities and differences between the diagnosis model and the cuebased retrieval model, to which we will return in the discussion.…”

“…Fodor & Inoue (1998) and Lewis (1998)) for serial reanalysis models in which attachment occurs first. the disambiguating region (the diagnosis ''cue''), which can make a given misanalyzed ambiguity either easy or difficult to diagnose and thus repair (see also Meng & Bader (2000)). There are both important commonalities and differences between the diagnosis model and the cuebased retrieval model, to which we will return in the discussion.…”