Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Measuring syntactic complexity relative to discourse context
- 2 Interpreting questions
- 3 How can grammars help parsers?
- 4 Syntactic complexity
- 5 Processing of sentences with intrasentential code switching
- 6 Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?
- 7 Parsing in functional unification grammar
- 8 Parsing in a free word order language
- 9 A new characterization of attachment preferences
- 10 On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological syntax processor
- 11 Do listeners compute linguistic representations?
- Index
9 - A new characterization of attachment preferences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Measuring syntactic complexity relative to discourse context
- 2 Interpreting questions
- 3 How can grammars help parsers?
- 4 Syntactic complexity
- 5 Processing of sentences with intrasentential code switching
- 6 Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?
- 7 Parsing in functional unification grammar
- 8 Parsing in a free word order language
- 9 A new characterization of attachment preferences
- 10 On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological syntax processor
- 11 Do listeners compute linguistic representations?
- Index
Summary
Kimball's parsing principles (Kimball, 1973), Frazier and Fodor's Sausage Machine (Frazier and Fodor, 1978; Fodor and Frazier, 1980) and Wanner's augmented transition network (ATN) model (Wanner, 1980) have tried to explain why certain readings of structurally ambiguous sentences are preferred to others, in the absence of semantic information. The kinds of ambiguity under discussion are exemplified by the following two sentences.
Tom said that Bill had taken the cleaning out yesterday.
John bought the book for Susan.
For sentence (1), the reading ‘Yesterday Bill took the cleaning out’ is preferred to ‘Tom spoke yesterday about Bill taking the cleaning out.’ Kimball (1973) introduced the principle of Right Association (RA) to account for this kind of preference. The basic idea of the Right Association principle is that, in the absence of other information, phrases are attached to a partial analysis as far right as possible.
For sentence (2), the reading ‘The book was bought for Susan’ is preferred to ‘John bought a book that had been beforehand destined for Susan.’ To account for this preference, Frazier and Fodor (1978) introduced the principle of Minimal Attachment (MA), which may be summarized as stating that, in the absence of other information, phrases are attached so as to minimize the complexity of the analysis.
Much of the debate about the formulation and interaction of such principles is caused by their lack of precision and, at the same time, by their being too specific. I propose a simple, precise, and general framework in which improved versions of Right Association and Minimal Attachment can be formulated.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Natural Language ParsingPsychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives, pp. 307 - 319Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1985
- 10
- Cited by