主动依存关系解析中的语法和期望:挪威语的实验和建模证据

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Anastasia Kobzeva, Dave Kush
{"title":"主动依存关系解析中的语法和期望:挪威语的实验和建模证据","authors":"Anastasia Kobzeva,&nbsp;Dave Kush","doi":"10.1111/cogs.13501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Filler-gap dependency resolution is often characterized as an active process. We probed the mechanisms that determine where and why comprehenders posit gaps during incremental processing using Norwegian as our test language. First, we investigated why active filler-gap dependency resolution is suspended inside <i>island</i> domains like embedded questions in some languages. Processing-based accounts hold that resource limitations prevent gap-filling in embedded questions across languages, while grammar-based accounts predict that active gap-filling is only blocked in languages where embedded questions are grammatical islands. In a self-paced reading study, we find that Norwegian participants exhibit filled-gap effects inside embedded questions, which are not islands in the language. The findings are consistent with grammar-based, but not processing, accounts. Second, we asked if active filler-gap processing can be understood as a special case of probabilistic ambiguity resolution within an <i>expectation-based</i> framework. To do so, we tested whether word-by-word surprisal values from a neural language model could predict the location and magnitude of filled-gap effects in our behavioral data. We find that surprisal accurately tracks the location of filled-gap effects but severely underestimates their magnitude. This suggests either that mechanisms above and beyond probabilistic ambiguity resolution are required to fully explain active gap-filling behavior or that surprisal values derived from long-short term memory are not good proxies for humans' incremental expectations during filler-gap resolution.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.13501","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grammar and Expectation in Active Dependency Resolution: Experimental and Modeling Evidence From Norwegian\",\"authors\":\"Anastasia Kobzeva,&nbsp;Dave Kush\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.13501\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Filler-gap dependency resolution is often characterized as an active process. We probed the mechanisms that determine where and why comprehenders posit gaps during incremental processing using Norwegian as our test language. First, we investigated why active filler-gap dependency resolution is suspended inside <i>island</i> domains like embedded questions in some languages. Processing-based accounts hold that resource limitations prevent gap-filling in embedded questions across languages, while grammar-based accounts predict that active gap-filling is only blocked in languages where embedded questions are grammatical islands. In a self-paced reading study, we find that Norwegian participants exhibit filled-gap effects inside embedded questions, which are not islands in the language. The findings are consistent with grammar-based, but not processing, accounts. Second, we asked if active filler-gap processing can be understood as a special case of probabilistic ambiguity resolution within an <i>expectation-based</i> framework. To do so, we tested whether word-by-word surprisal values from a neural language model could predict the location and magnitude of filled-gap effects in our behavioral data. We find that surprisal accurately tracks the location of filled-gap effects but severely underestimates their magnitude. This suggests either that mechanisms above and beyond probabilistic ambiguity resolution are required to fully explain active gap-filling behavior or that surprisal values derived from long-short term memory are not good proxies for humans' incremental expectations during filler-gap resolution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"48 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.13501\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13501\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13501","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

填补空白依赖性的解决通常被描述为一个积极的过程。我们以挪威语为测试语言,探究了决定理解者在增量处理过程中在哪里以及为什么要设置间隙的机制。首先,我们研究了为什么在某些语言的岛域(如嵌入式问题)中,主动的填补空白依赖性解析会被中止。基于加工的解释认为,资源限制阻碍了不同语言中嵌入式问题的填空,而基于语法的解释则预测,只有在嵌入式问题是语法孤岛的语言中,主动填空才会受阻。在一项自定进度的阅读研究中,我们发现挪威语参与者在嵌入式问题中表现出了填空效应,而嵌入式问题在语言中并非孤岛。研究结果与基于语法而非加工的说法相一致。其次,我们提出了一个问题:在基于期望的框架内,是否可以将主动的填空处理理解为概率性歧义解决的一种特殊情况。为此,我们测试了神经语言模型中的逐字惊奇值能否预测行为数据中填空效应的位置和程度。我们发现,惊奇值准确地追踪了填充间隙效应的位置,但却严重低估了其程度。这表明,要完全解释主动填空行为,要么需要超越概率性歧义解决机制的机制,要么来自长短期记忆的惊奇值并不能很好地代表人类在填空解决过程中的增量预期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Grammar and Expectation in Active Dependency Resolution: Experimental and Modeling Evidence From Norwegian

Filler-gap dependency resolution is often characterized as an active process. We probed the mechanisms that determine where and why comprehenders posit gaps during incremental processing using Norwegian as our test language. First, we investigated why active filler-gap dependency resolution is suspended inside island domains like embedded questions in some languages. Processing-based accounts hold that resource limitations prevent gap-filling in embedded questions across languages, while grammar-based accounts predict that active gap-filling is only blocked in languages where embedded questions are grammatical islands. In a self-paced reading study, we find that Norwegian participants exhibit filled-gap effects inside embedded questions, which are not islands in the language. The findings are consistent with grammar-based, but not processing, accounts. Second, we asked if active filler-gap processing can be understood as a special case of probabilistic ambiguity resolution within an expectation-based framework. To do so, we tested whether word-by-word surprisal values from a neural language model could predict the location and magnitude of filled-gap effects in our behavioral data. We find that surprisal accurately tracks the location of filled-gap effects but severely underestimates their magnitude. This suggests either that mechanisms above and beyond probabilistic ambiguity resolution are required to fully explain active gap-filling behavior or that surprisal values derived from long-short term memory are not good proxies for humans' incremental expectations during filler-gap resolution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信