This thesis deals with gradience in grammar, i.e., with the fact that some linguistic structures are not fully acceptable or unacceptable, but receive gradient linguistic judgments. The importance of gradient data for linguistic theory has been recognized at least since Chomsky’s Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. However, systematic empirical studies of gradience are largely absent, and none of the major theoretical frameworks is designed to account for gradient data. The present thesis addresses both questions. In the experimental part of the thesis (Chapters 3–5), we present a set of magnitude estimation experiments investigating gradience in grammar. The experiments deal with unaccusativity/unergativity, extraction, binding, word order, and gapping. They cover all major modules of syntactic theory, and draw on data from three languages (English, German, and Greek). In the theoretical part of thesis (Chapters 6 and 7), we use these experimental results to motivate a model of gradience in grammar. This model is a variant of Optimality Theory, and explains gradience in terms of the competition of ranked, violable linguistic constraints. The experimental studies in this thesis deliver two main results. First, they demonstrate

Many theories have been proposed to explain difficulty with center embedded constructions, most attributing the problem to some kind of limited capacity short-term memory. However, these theories have developed for the most part independently of more traditional memory research, which has focused on uncovering general principles such as chunking and interference. This article attempts to gain some unification with this research by suggesting that an interesting range of core sentence processing phenomena can be explained as interference effects in a sharply limited syntactic working memory. These include difficult and acceptable embeddings, as well as certain limitations on ambiguity resolution, length effects in garden path structures, and the requirement for locality in syntactic structure. The theory takes the form of an architecture for parsing which can index no more than two constituents under the same syntactic relation. A limitation of two or three items shows up in a variety o...

This article addresses the question of how the processor decides on its initial strategy for syntactic ambiguity resolution. At a point of ambiguity, more than one analysis is possible. An effective strategy might be to adopt the analysis that has most frequently turned out to be correct in the past. Assuming that the world stays the same in most respects, the analysis that has most frequently been correct in the past should provide a good estimate of which analysis is most likely to be correct again. Hence, by adopting this analysis, the processor should make fewer errors than if it chose any other analysis

xii Chapter 1 INCREMENTALITY AND PARSING........................................................................ 1 1.1

This chapter develops a theory of reanalysis called limited repair parsing. Repair parsers deal with the problem of local ambiguity in part by modifying previously built structure when the chosen structure later proves to be inconsistent. This modification of existing structure distinguishes repair parsing from parallel or multi-path parsing, least-commitment parsing, backtracking, or reparsing strategies. Parsers with a limited capability for repair are psycholinguistically important because they can potentially explain the contrasts between difficult garden path structures (when repair fails) and unproblematic local ambiguities (when repair is successful or easy). Although the idea of repair has been implicit in some psycholinguistic work (and emerged explicitly in the diagnosis model of Fodor & Inoue, 1994, and the NL-Soar model of Lewis, 1993), there has been no clear formulation of the general class of repair parsers. This chapter makes a first step toward such a formulation, show...

this article, we investigate how SpanRobert Thornton, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, University of Southern California; Maryellen C. MacDonald, Departments of Psychology and Linguistics and Neuroscience Program, University of Southern California; Mariela Gil, Departments of Psychology and Linguistics, University of Southern California.

this paper is to further explore modularity and Soar along this path by considering in some detail one area of psycholinguistics---sentence processing---where modularity has been a central concern, and asking how Soar could account for the pattern of results that has accumulated.

This is the pre-publication manuscript. The published version may slightly differ.

Dynamical, self-organizing models of sentence processing predict “digging-in ” effects: The more committed the parser becomes to a wrong syntactic choice, the harder it is to reanalyze. Experiment 1 replicates previous grammaticality judgment studies (F. Ferreira & J. M. Henderson, 1991b, 1993), revealing a deleterious effect of lengthening the ambiguous region of a garden-path sentence. The authors interpret this result as a digging-in effect. Experiment 2 finds a corresponding effect on reading times. Experiment 3 finds that making 2 wrong attachments is worse than making 1. Non-self-organizing models require multiple stipulations to predict both kinds of effects. The authors show that, under an appropriately formulated self-organizing account, both results stem from self-reinforcement of node and link activations, a feature that is needed independently. An implemented model is given. Whitney Tabor and Sean Hutchins, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut. Thanks to Fernanda Ferreira for providing many insightful comments as well as materials that formed the basis of the stimuli, Leonard Katz, Maryellen MacDonald, and Michael K. Tanenhaus for insightful comments,