Abstract
When a noun phrase could either be the object of the preceding verb or the subject of a new clause or a sentence complement, readers and listeners show a strong preference to parse the noun phrase as the object of the verb. This can result in clear garden paths for sentences such asThe student read the book was stolen andWhile the student read the book was stolen. Even when the verb does not permit a noun phrase complement, soem processing difficulty is still found. This has led some theorists to propose models in which initial attachments are lexically blind, with lexical information subsequently used as a filter to evaluate and revise initial analyses. In contrast, we show that these results emerge naturally from constraint-based lexicalist models. We present a modeling experiment with a simple recurrent network that was trained to predict upcoming complements for a sample of verbs taken from the Penn Treebank corpus. The model exhibits an boject bias and it aloo shows effects of verb frequency which are similar to those found in the psycholinguistic literature.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144.
Adams, B. C., Clifton, C., & Mitchell, D. C. (1993).Lexical guidance in sentence processing: further support for a filtering account. Manuscript submitted for publication
Clifton, C., Jr., Speer, S., & Abney, S. P. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure determinats of initial parsing decisions.Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251–271.
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time.Cognitive Science, 14, 213–252.
Ferrcira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). The use of verb information in syntactic parsing: A comparison of evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 555–568.
Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.),Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 37–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson, (Ed.),Lexical Representation and Process (pp. 505–627). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Garnsey, S. M., Lotocky, M., & McKonkie, G. (1992).Verb-usage knowledge in sentence comprehension. Poster presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis.
Gibson, E. (1991).A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Contingent frequency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. InProceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 593–598). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lachter, J., & Bever, T. G. (1988). The relation between linguistic structure and associative theories of language learning—A constructive critique of some connectionist learning models.Cognition, 28, 195–247.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (in press). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review.
Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank.Computational Linguistics, 19, 313–330.
Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing. Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mitchell, D. C. (1989). Verb guidance and other lexical effects in parsing.Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 123–154.
Mitchell, D. C., & Cuetos, F. (1991).The origins of parsing strategies. Unpublished manuscript.
Pearlmutter, N. J., Daugherty, K., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Modeling the use of frequency and contextual biases in sentence processing. InProceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 699–702). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pritchett, B. L. (1992).Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 318–362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint based ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner, (Eds.),Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (in press). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic, role information in syntactic disambiguation.Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528–553.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Juliano, C., Tanenhaus, M.K. A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference. J Psycholinguist Res 23, 459–471 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02146685
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02146685