Abstract
The two-stage architecture of the Garden-Path Theory with its separation of first- and second-pass parsing has been replaced by simpler architectures in certain probability-based models of the human parser, including the Surprisal Theory. Based on evidence from subject-object ambiguities in German, this paper argues that the two-stage architecture still provides a better account of the garden-path strength observed for object-before-subject sentences in German. In the first part of the paper, corpus findings concerning the relationship between animacy and word order are discussed. Although animacy information is an important predictor of word-order in German, the Surprisal Theory does not predict differences in garden-path strength related to this information because animacy constrains word order only in combination with the verb’s argument structure. Because garden-path strength in verb-final clauses, as they are found in German, is a function of the verb’s expectedness according to the Surprisal Theory, verb specific information itself cannot affect garden-path strength in this theory. In the second part of the paper, a specific implementation of a two-stage model of garden-path recovery, the Linking-and-Checking model, is discussed. This model accounts for the dependence of garden-path strength in object-before-subject sentences on animacy as well as for findings concerning the use of subject-verb agreement for garden-path recovery.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Actually, the order among arguments is a function of several factors, including verb semantics, animacy and definiteness (cf. Ellsiepen & Bader, 2018, for recent experimental evidence). Since the question of how the order of arguments is determined is orthogonal to the purposes of this paper, I stick to the simplifying assumption that the argument structure associated with the verb directly determines the order of arguments.
- 2.
More generally speaking, these processes are always invoked when the HSPM detects an ungrammaticality—whether this ungrammaticality is a non-permanent one (garden-path sentences) or a permanent one (ungrammatical sentences). See Meng and Bader (2000) and Hopf et al. (2003) for the relation between garden-path sentences and ungrammatical sentences.
- 3.
Given the simplifying assumption concerning word-order and argument structure, the Argument Linking Step of the LBCA is simplified accordingly. A non-simplified version can be found in Bader and Bayer (2006).
References
Bader, M. (1996). Sprachverstehen: Syntax und Prosodie beim Lesen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (2003). Diagnosis and garden-path recovery—case and agreement symptoms revisited. Presented at the 9th annual conference on architecture and mechanisms for language processing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and linking in language comprehension: Evidence from German. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (2010). Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua, 120(3), 717–762.
Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (2018). Assigning syntactic functions: On the proper balance between frequency and structure. Manuscript, Goethe University Frankfurt/University Leipzig.
Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: an across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.
Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, 787–821.
De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ellsiepen, E., & Bader, M. (2018). Constraints on argument linearization in German. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.258.
Fodor, J. D., & Ferreira, F. (Eds.). (1998). Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.
Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Haider, H. (2010). The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 159–166.
Hale, J. T. (2014). Automaton theories of human sentence comprehension. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
Häussler, J., & Bader, M. (2011). Grammar- versus frequency-driven syntactic ambiguity resolution: the case of double-object constructions. In M. Lamers & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (pp. 273–302). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoberg, U. (1981). Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. München: Hueber.
Hopf, J.-M., Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (2003). Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 165–177.
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2008). Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 170–181.
Meng, M., & Bader, M. (2000). Ungrammaticality detection and garden-path strength: Evidence for serial parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 615–666.
Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375–409). San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
Scheepers, C. (1996). Menschliche Satzverarbeitung: Syntaktische und thematische Aspekte der Wortstellung im Deutschen (Doctoral dissertation). Universität Freiburg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bader, M. (2019). The Division of Labor Between Structure Building and Feature Checking During Sentence Comprehension. In: Carlson, K., Clifton, Jr., C., Fodor, J. (eds) Grammatical Approaches to Language Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01562-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01563-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)