The Role of Lexical Heads in Parsing: Evidence from German

Konieczny, Lars; Hemforth, Barbara; Scheepers, Christoph; Strube, Gerhard

doi:10.1080/016909697386871

Cited by 97 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the effect of left±right contingencies can be substantiated in further research, this may have important bearings on the hotly debated issue of head-driven parsing (for a recent overview of the literature, with novel experimental data, see Kamide & Mitchell, 1999;Konieczny, Hemforth, Scheepers & Strube, 1997). The U-Space model exempli®es strictly head-driven parsing: phrasal nodes (S, NP, PP, etc.)…”

Section: Discussion: Evaluating the Uni®cation Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subject) by the ®nite verb. Konieczny et al (1997), however, argue that this view of parsing is incorrect. German-language data obtained in their laboratory (see Hemforth, Konieczny & Strube, 1993) indicate that the oft-reported preference to interpret clause-initial NPs as the subject is measurable before the verb has been encountered: if clause-initial NPs are explicitly marked as non-nominative they consume slightly more processing time than NPs that are unambiguously nominative or have ambiguous case marking.…”

Section: Discussion: Evaluating the Uni®cation Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the design, implementation and simulation results of a psycholinguistic model of human syntactic processing that meets major empirical criteria. The parser operates in conjunction with a lexicalist grammar and is driven by syntactic information associated with heads of phrases. The dynamics of the model are based on competition by lateral inhibition (`competitive inhibition'). Input words activate lexical frames (i.e. elementary trees anchored to input words) in the mental lexicon, and a network of candidate`uni®cation links' is set up between frame nodes. These links represent tentative attachments that are graded rather than all-or-none. Candidate links that, due to grammatical or`treehood' constraints, are incompatible, compete for inclusion in the ®nal syntactic tree by sending each other inhibitory signals that reduce the competitor's attachment strength. The outcome of these local and simultaneous competitions is controlled by dynamic parameters, in particular by the Entry Activation and the Activation Decay rate of syntactic nodes, and by the Strength and Strength Build-up rate of Uni®cation links. In case of a successful parse, a single syntactic tree is returned that covers the whole input string and consists of lexical frames connected by winning Uni®cation links. Simulations are reported of a signi®cant range of psycholinguistic parsing phenomena in both normal and aphasic speakers of English: (i) various effects of linguistic complexity (single versus double, center versus right-hand self-embeddings of relative clauses; the difference between relative clauses with subject and object extraction; the contrast between a complement clause embedded within a relative clause versus a relative clause embedded within a complement clause); (ii) effects of local and global ambiguity, and of word-class and syntactic ambiguity (including recency and length effects); (iii) certain dif®culty-ofreanalysis effects (contrasts between local ambiguities that are easy to resolve versus ones that lead to serious garden-path effects); (iv) effects of agrammatism on parsing performance, www.elsevier.com/locate/cognit * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: vosse@fsw.leidenuniv.nl (T. Vosse); kempen@fsw.leidenuniv.nl (G. Kempen) in particular the performance of various groups of aphasic patients on several sentence types. q

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Evaluating the Uni®cation Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion: Evaluating the Uni®cation Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For each region, we report first-pass reading times (summed duration of all fixations from first fixating within a region before a saccade from it -referred to as gaze duration for regions containing only one word, such as the postremnant region in the present experiment), total reading times (summed duration of all fixations in a region), and regression-path reading times (summed duration of all fixations from the time a region is first entered from the left until it is first exited to the right). Regression-path reading time (also called go-past reading times; Konieczny, Hemforth, Scheepers, & Strube, 1997;Liversedge, Paterson, & Pickering, 1998;Rayner & Duffy, 1986) includes fixations made to re-inspect earlier portions of text and provides an indication of early processing difficulty along with time spent re-inspecting text to recover from such difficulty (e.g., Liversedge et al, 1998;Rayner & Duffy, 1986). Analyses of reading times for each region excluded trials in which no fixations were made within that region and where reading times were above 5000 ms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing contextual and lexical cues to focus: Evidence from eye movements in reading

Sauermann

Filik

Paterson

2013

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three eye movement experiments investigated the interaction between contextual and lexical focus cues during reading. Context was used to focus on either the indirect or direct object of a double object construction, which was followed by a remnant continuation that formed either a congruous or incongruous contrast with the contextually-focused object. Experiment 1 demonstrated that remnants were more difficult to process when incongruous with the contextually-focused constituent, indicating that context was effective in specifying focus. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the interaction between context and lexical focus arising from the particle only which specifies focus on the subsequent adjacent element. When only preceded both objects (Experiment 2), the conflict between lexical and contextual focus cues disrupted processing of the remnant element and was resolved in favor of the contextually-focused element. However, when only was placed between both objects (Experiment 3), cue-conflict disrupted processing earlier in the sentence, but did not appear to be fully resolved during on-line sentence processing. These findings reveal that the interplay between contextual and lexical cues to focus is important for establishing focus structure during on-line sentence processing.

show abstract

“…Some researchers simply record first-pass reading time and then examine the pattern of regressions out of the target region. Others have argued for regression-path durations analyses (Konieczny, Hemforth, Scheepers, & Strube, 1997) or cumulative region reading time analyses (Brysbaert & Mitchell, 1996). With these analyses, reading time represents the sum of all fixations starting with the first fixation in a region and ending with the first forward saccade past the region under consideration 3 (see Liversedge, Paterson, & Pickering, 1998, for further discussion of these issues).…”

Section: What Is the Best Measure Of Processing Time?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.

Rayner

1998

Psychological Bulletin

5,909

231

5,590

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies of eye movements in reading and other information processing tasks, such as music reading, typing, visual search, and scene perception, are reviewed. The major emphasis of the review is on reading as a specific example of cognitive processing. Basic topics discussed with respect to reading are (a) the characteristics of eye movements, (b) the perceptual span, (c) integration of information across saccades, (d) eye movement control, and (e) individual differences (including dyslexia). Similar topics are discussed with respect to the other tasks examined. The basic theme of the review is that eye movement data reflect moment-to-moment cognitive processes in the various tasks examined. Theoretical and practical considerations concerning the use of eye movement data are also discussed.Many studies using eye movements to investigate cognitive processes have appeared over the past 20 years. In an earlier review, I (Rayner, 1978b) argued that since the mid-1970s we have been in a third era of eye movement research and that the success of research in the current era would depend on the ingenuity of researchers in designing interesting and informative studies. It would appear from the vast number of studies using eye movement data over the past 20 years that research in this third era is fulfilling the promise inherent in using eye movement behavior to infer cognitive processes. The first era of eye movement research extended from Javal's initial observations concerning the role of eye movements in reading in 1879 (see Huey, 1908) up until about 1920. During this era, many basic facts about eye movements were discovered. Issues such as saccadic suppression (the fact that we do not perceive information during an eye movement), saccade latency (the time that it takes to initiate an eye movement), and the size of the perceptual span (the region of effective vision) were of concern in this era. The second era, which coincided with the behaviorist movement in experimental psychology, tended to have a more applied focus, and little research was undertaken with eye movements to infer cognitive processes. Although classic work by Tinker (1946) on reading and by Buswell (1935) on scene perception was carried out during this era, in retrospect, most of the work seems to have focused on the eye movements per se (or on surface aspects of the task being investigated). Tinker's (1958) final review ended on the rather pessimistic note that almost every-

show abstract

The Role of Lexical Heads in Parsing: Evidence from German

Cited by 97 publications

References 19 publications

Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar

Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar

Processing contextual and lexical cues to focus: Evidence from eye movements in reading

Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About