1 / 21

The Independence of Syntactic Processing

This presentation by Dong-Bo Hsu explores the modular view of syntactic processing, emphasizing the independence of initial processing from semantic, thematic, or pragmatic information. It discusses key concepts such as Minimal Attachment (MA) and its implications for memory load and processing efficiency. Two experiments are presented to support the modular perspective, demonstrating that thematic information does not influence initial syntactic processing. The findings highlight the significance of a modular representation in understanding how we process syntax effectively, even in the presence of contextual cues.

uriah-orr
Télécharger la présentation

The Independence of Syntactic Processing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Independence of Syntactic Processing Advanced Psycholinguistics Presenter: Dong-Bo Hsu 02/09/06

  2. To Verify the Modular View • What is the module? • The subcomponents of the linguistic functions • Modular Approach to Syntactic Processing • Autonomous/Independent Processing • Information Encapsulation • No semantic/thematic or pragmatic information can penetrate the initial processing

  3. Modular Representation in Syntactic Processing • Minimal attachment (MA) dominates • the initial • representation • of syntactic • processing

  4. The implications of MA approach in syntactic processing • 1. Reduce the memory load and efficient in processing • 2. Result in the garden path • 3. MA strategy, not influenced by non-syntactic information

  5. How to Support A Modular View Experimentally • The Reasoning and Goal of the Design • 1. To demonstrate that no thematic/semantic information----initial syntactic processing • 2. Pragmatic or contextual information cannot bias the initial syntactic processing • 3. At most, contextual influence comes in in a later stage, not initial

  6. Experiment I: the influence of thematic information • 1a. The defendant / examined / by the lawyer/ • c-2 c-1 c (disambiguate) • turned out / to be unreliable. • c+2 (animate, reduced) • 1b. The evidence / examined / by the lawyer / • turned out to be unreliable.

  7. The Prediction • The modular view • 1. Syntactic processing- initially construct MA analysis • 2.Thematic information has no influence • 3. No processing difference in reading regions c and c+1 • 4. (possible) c-1 take longer to read, • subjects detect the anomalous nature, the evidence

  8. The interactive view • 1. Thematic information can aid syntactic processing, especially in the initial stage • 2. c and c+1 will be read faster because of the aid of thematic information

  9. The Apparatus and Materials • Apparatus: Dual Purkinjie Eyetracker interfaced with a Hewlett-Packard 2100 computer • 16 sentences with fillers and intermixed with 40 texts + true/false questions

  10. The Measurement and Scoring Regions • First pass reading time: first left to right fixation on the character + right-to-left movement within the character • Second pass reading time: regressions and rereading of the sentences • Latin square design • Significance level .05

  11. The Result

  12. Discussion I • Reduced relative clause > unreduced counterpart • Animate reduced = inanimate reduced • Inanimate reduced: longer in c-1 than that in animate counterpart • Reflect MA strategy in spite of thematic information • In support of modular syntactic processing

  13. Experiment II-Contextual Information • 2a. The editor played the tape / and agreed the story was big. (Minimal Attachment) • 2b. The editor played the tape / agreed the story was big. (Nonminimal Attachment) • 3a. Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / before his coffee break. (Minimal Attachment) • 3b. Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / onto the van (Nonminimal Attachment)

  14. The Material

  15. The Prediction • The modular view • Initially syntactic processing—MA strategy • NMA-NMA = N-NMA > MA-MA = N-MA • The interactive view • Contextual information aids syntactic processing • NMA-NMA < N-NMA; MA-MA < N-MA • N-NMA > N-MA

  16. Design and Materials

  17. First pass reading time per character

  18. Second pass reading time per character

  19. Percentage Correct

  20. Result for Exp III—a replication of Exp II Self-paced Reading Paradigm

  21. Alternative Explanation • 1. Prof. Garnsey’s paper • 2. The individual difference on working memory (Just & Carpenter)

More Related