Cargando…

Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations

Swets et al. (2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216) presented evidence that the so-called ambiguity advantage [Traxler et al. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Logačev, Pavel, Vasishth, Shravan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Routledge 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4926776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26960441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602
_version_ 1782440179960643584
author Logačev, Pavel
Vasishth, Shravan
author_facet Logačev, Pavel
Vasishth, Shravan
author_sort Logačev, Pavel
collection PubMed
description Swets et al. (2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216) presented evidence that the so-called ambiguity advantage [Traxler et al. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592], which has been explained in terms of the Unrestricted Race Model, can equally well be explained by assuming underspecification in ambiguous conditions driven by task-demands. Specifically, if comprehension questions require that ambiguities be resolved, the parser tends to make an attachment: when questions are about superficial aspects of the target sentence, readers tend to pursue an underspecification strategy. It is reasonable to assume that individual differences in strategy will play a significant role in the application of such strategies, so that studying average behaviour may not be informative. In order to study the predictions of the good-enough processing theory, we implemented two versions of underspecification: the partial specification model (PSM), which is an implementation of the Swets et al. proposal, and a more parsimonious version, the non-specification model (NSM). We evaluate the relative fit of these two kinds of underspecification to Swets et al.’s data; as a baseline, we also fitted three models that assume no underspecification. We find that a model without underspecification provides a somewhat better fit than both underspecification models, while the NSM model provides a better fit than the PSM. We interpret the results as lack of unambiguous evidence in favour of underspecification; however, given that there is considerable existing evidence for good-enough processing in the literature, it is reasonable to assume that some underspecification might occur. Under this assumption, the results can be interpreted as tentative evidence for NSM over PSM. More generally, our work provides a method for choosing between models of real-time processes in sentence comprehension that make qualitative predictions about the relationship between several dependent variables. We believe that sentence processing research will greatly benefit from a wider use of such methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4926776
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Routledge
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49267762016-07-11 Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations Logačev, Pavel Vasishth, Shravan Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) Regular Articles Swets et al. (2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216) presented evidence that the so-called ambiguity advantage [Traxler et al. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592], which has been explained in terms of the Unrestricted Race Model, can equally well be explained by assuming underspecification in ambiguous conditions driven by task-demands. Specifically, if comprehension questions require that ambiguities be resolved, the parser tends to make an attachment: when questions are about superficial aspects of the target sentence, readers tend to pursue an underspecification strategy. It is reasonable to assume that individual differences in strategy will play a significant role in the application of such strategies, so that studying average behaviour may not be informative. In order to study the predictions of the good-enough processing theory, we implemented two versions of underspecification: the partial specification model (PSM), which is an implementation of the Swets et al. proposal, and a more parsimonious version, the non-specification model (NSM). We evaluate the relative fit of these two kinds of underspecification to Swets et al.’s data; as a baseline, we also fitted three models that assume no underspecification. We find that a model without underspecification provides a somewhat better fit than both underspecification models, while the NSM model provides a better fit than the PSM. We interpret the results as lack of unambiguous evidence in favour of underspecification; however, given that there is considerable existing evidence for good-enough processing in the literature, it is reasonable to assume that some underspecification might occur. Under this assumption, the results can be interpreted as tentative evidence for NSM over PSM. More generally, our work provides a method for choosing between models of real-time processes in sentence comprehension that make qualitative predictions about the relationship between several dependent variables. We believe that sentence processing research will greatly benefit from a wider use of such methods. Routledge 2016-05-03 2016-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4926776/ /pubmed/26960441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602 Text en © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
spellingShingle Regular Articles
Logačev, Pavel
Vasishth, Shravan
Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations
title Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations
title_full Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations
title_fullStr Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations
title_full_unstemmed Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations
title_short Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations
title_sort understanding underspecification: a comparison of two computational implementations
topic Regular Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4926776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26960441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602
work_keys_str_mv AT logacevpavel understandingunderspecificationacomparisonoftwocomputationalimplementations
AT vasishthshravan understandingunderspecificationacomparisonoftwocomputationalimplementations