This paper proposes a new theory of the relationship between the sentence processing mechanism and the available computational resources. This theory -- the Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory (SPLT) -- has two components: an integration cost component and a component for the memory cost associated with keeping track of obligatory syntactic requirements. Memory cost is

Introduction Despite considerable diversity among theories about how humans process language, there are a number of fundamental assumptions which are shared by most such theories. This consensus extends to the very basic question about what counts as a cognitive process. So although many cognitive scientists are fond of referring to the brain as a `mental organ' (e.g., Chomsky, 1975)---implying a similarity to other organs such as the liver or kidneys---it is also assumed that the brain is an organ with special properties which set it apart. Brains `carry out computation' (it is argued)

A central question for psycholinguistics concerns the role of grammatical constraints in online sentence processing. Many current theories maintain that the language processing mechanism constructs a parse or parses that are grammatically consistent with the whole of the perceived input each time it processes a word. Several bottom-up, dynamical models make a contrasting prediction: partial parses which are syntactically compatible with only a proper subpart of the input are sometimes constructed, at least temporarily. Three self-paced reading experiments probed for interference from such locally coherent structures. The first tested for a distracting effect of irrelevant Subject–Predicate interpretations of Noun Phrase–Verb Phrase sequences (e.g., The coach smiled at the player tossed a frisbee) on reading times. The second addressed the question of whether the interference effects can be treated as lexical interference, instead of involving the formation of locally coherent syntactic structures. The third replicated the reading time effects of the first two experiments with grammaticality judgments. We evaluate the dynamical account, comparing it to other approaches that also predict effects of local coherence, and arguing against accounts which rule out the formation of merely locally coherent structures.

This paper discusses ways of determining whether the human parser is serial maintaining at most, one structural interpretation at each parse state, or whether it is parallel, maintaining more than one structural interpretation in at least some circumstances. We make four points. The first two counterclaims made by Lewis (2000): (1) that the availability of alternative structures should not vary as a function of the disambiguating material in some ranked parallel models; and (2) that parallel models predict a slow down during the ambiguous region for more syntactically ambiguous structures. Our other points concern potential methods for seeking experimental evidence relevant to the serial/parallel question. We discuss effects of the plausibility of a secondary structure in the ambiguous region (Pearlmutter & Mendelsohn, 1999) and suggest examining the distribution of reaction times in the disambiguating region. This paper addresses the question of determining how many structural interpretations the human parser retains during its normal first-pass operation: whether the parser is serial, maintaining at most one structural interpretation at each parse state, or whether it is parallel, maintaining more than one structural interpretation in some circumstances. It has long been known that

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

A central question for psycholinguistics concerns the role of grammatical constraints in online sentence processing. Many current theories maintain that, at each point in time, the processor constructs an analysis which is consistent with the grammatical information in the input. Several bottom-up, dynamical models make a contrasting prediction: partial parses which are syntactically incompatible with the current input can nevertheless temporarily influence the processor. Three self-paced reading experiments demonstrated the influence of such local structural ambiguities. The first examined

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,