Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution

Matthew James Green, D C Mitchell (Corresponding Author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-17
JournalJournal of Memory and Language
Volume55
Issue number1
Early online date27 Apr 2006
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2006

Fingerprint

Syntactics
Reading
evidence
mismatch
Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution
simulation
Prediction

Keywords

  • Syntactic ambiguity resolution
  • Human parsing
  • Constraint-based models

Cite this

Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. / Green, Matthew James; Mitchell, D C (Corresponding Author).

In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 55, No. 1, 07.2006, p. 1-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Green, Matthew James ; Mitchell, D C . / Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. In: Journal of Memory and Language. 2006 ; Vol. 55, No. 1. pp. 1-17.
@article{e6e1aa91ce5e4754bc16403782a9ef9e,
title = "Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution",
abstract = "Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.",
keywords = "Syntactic ambiguity resolution , Human parsing, Constraint-based models",
author = "Green, {Matthew James} and Mitchell, {D C}",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "1--17",
journal = "Journal of Memory and Language",
issn = "0749-596X",
publisher = "ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution

AU - Green, Matthew James

AU - Mitchell, D C

PY - 2006/7

Y1 - 2006/7

N2 - Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.

AB - Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.

KW - Syntactic ambiguity resolution

KW - Human parsing

KW - Constraint-based models

U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 1

EP - 17

JO - Journal of Memory and Language

JF - Journal of Memory and Language

SN - 0749-596X

IS - 1

ER -