Experimental studies of grammar: Syntactic analysis of ambiguous sentences

 
PIIS0373658X0001065-0-1
DOI10.31857/S0373658X0001065-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, 199034
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: 199034
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: 199034
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: 199034
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: 199034
Journal nameVoprosy Jazykoznanija
EditionIssue 6
Pages36-50
Abstract

Parsing in sentence processing is one of the key problems of psycholinguistics. Syntactically ambiguous sentences, which allow for several possible parses, give an opportunity to reveal the factors that guide the choice of the interpretation and thus become an instrument for studying sentence processing. In this paper we present several experiments with reference to Russian. The results may help to gain a better understanding of how syntactic processing may proceed.

Keywordsmental grammar, sentence processing, syntactic ambiguity
Received05.12.2016
Publication date05.12.2016
Number of characters619
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
1 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1282

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Dragoi 2006 — Dragoi O. V. The resolution of syntactic ambiguity: Rules and possibilities. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2006. No. 6. Pp. 44—61.

2. Kasevich 1988 — Kasevich V. B. Semantika. Sintaksis. Morfologiya [Semantics. Syntax. Morphology]. Leningrad: Nauka, 1988.

3. Mustaioki 2015 — Mustaioki A. Communicative failures from the perspective of the speaker’s needs. Yazyk i mysl’: sovremennaya kognitivnaya lingvistika. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2015. Pp. 543—559.

4. NKRYa — Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus]. Available at: http://www.ruscorpora.ru.

5. Peshkovskii 1956 — Peshkovskii A. M. Russkii sintaksis v nauchnom osveshchenii [The Russian syntax in scientific presentation]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1956.

6. Rusakova 2013 — Rusakova M. V. Elementy antropotsentricheskoi grammatiki russkogo yazyka [Elements of the Russian anthropocentric grammar]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2013.

7. Sekerina 1997 — Sekerina I. A. Psycholinguistics. Fundamental’nye napravleniya sovremennoi amerikanskoi lingvistiki. Kibrik A. A., Kobozeva I. M., Sekerina I. A. (eds.). Moscow: URSS, 1997.

8. Fedorova, Yanovich 2004 — Fedorova O. V., Yanovich I. S. On a certain type of syntactic ambiguity, or Who stood on the balcony. «Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii»: Trudy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog’2004». Moscow: Nauka, 2004. Pp. 644—649.

9. Fedorova, Yanovich 2005 — Fedorova O. V., Yanovich I. S.The resolution of syntactic ambiguity in Russian: The role of length and structure of the subordinate clause. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: Trudy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog’2005». Moscow: Nauka, 2005. Pp. 487—490.

10. Chernigovskaya 2013 — Chernigovskaya T. V. Cheshirskaya ulybka kota Shredingera: yazyk i soznanie [The Cheshire smile of Schrödinger’s cat: Language and consciousness]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2013.

11. Chernova 2015 — Chernova D. A. Interpretation of syntactically ambiguous structures in Russian: Adjunct complex nominal group. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2015. No. 11(53). Pp. 189—194.

12. Yudina 2006 — Yudina M. V. Understanding and generation of statements with syntactic ambiguity (as exemplified by relative clauses in Russian). «Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii»: Trudy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog’2006». Moscow: Nauka, 2006. Pp. 578—582.

13. Yudina et al. 2007 — Yudina M. V., Fedorova O. V., Yanovich I. S. Syntactic ambiguity in the experiment and in life. «Komp’uternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii»: Trudy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog’2007». Moscow: Nauka, 2007. Pp. 605— 610.

14. Bock, Warren 1985 — Bock J. K., Warren R. K. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition. 1985. Vol. 21. Pp. 47—67.

15. Chernova 2014 — Chernova D. Animacy effect in attachment ambiguity resolution // Шестая международная конференция по когнитивной науке: тезисы докладов. Калининград: МАКИ Калининград, 2014. C. 43—44.

16. Fedorova, Yanovich 2006 — Fedorova O., Yanovich I. Early preferences in RC-attachment in Russian: The effect of working memory differences. Proceedings of FASL 14. Lavine J., Franks S., Tasseva-Kurktchieva M., Filip H.(eds.). Ann Arbor (MI): Michigan Slavic Publications, 2006. Pp. 113—128.

17. Fodor 1998 — Fodor J. D. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1998. Vol. 27. Pp. 285—319.

18. Fodor 2002 — Fodor J. D. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32. Amherst: GSLA, Univ. of Massachusetts, 2002. Pp. 113—132.

19. Gibson et al. 1996 — Gibson E., Schütze C., Salomon A. The relationship between the frequency and the complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1996. Vol. 25. Pp. 59—92.

20. Grillo, Costa 2014 — Grillo N., Costa A. A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition. 2014. Vol. 133. No. 1. Pp. 156—187.

21. Konieczny, Hemforth 2000 — Konieczny L., Hemforth B. Modifier attachment in German. Relative clauses and prepositional phrases. Reading as a perceptual process. Kennedy A., Radach R., Heller D., Pynte J. (eds.). Oxford: Elsevier, 2000. Pp. 517—526.

22. Mitchell et al. 1995 — Mitchell D. C., Cuetos F., Corley M. M. B., Brysbaert M. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1995. Vol. 24. No. 6. Pp. 469—488.

23. Sekerina 2003 — Sekerina I. The late closure principle in processing of ambiguous Russian sentences. The proceedings of the Second European conference on formal description of Slavic languages. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam, 2003. Pp. 1—17.

24. Traxler et al. 1998 — Traxler M., Pickering M., Clifton C. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 1998. Vol. 39. Pp. 558—592.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up