Abstract
A strong claim about human sentence comprehension is that the processing mechanism is fully innate and applies differently to different languages only to the extent that their grammars differ. If so, there is hope for an explanatory project which attributes all parsing “strategies” to fundamental design characteristics of the parsing device. However, the whole explanatory program is in peril because of the discovery (Cuetos & Mitchell, 1988) that Late Closure is not universal: Spanish, and also Dutch and other languages, favor Early Closure (high attachment) where English favors Late Closure flow attachment). I argue that the universal parser can weather this storm. Exceptions to Late Closure in Spanish and other languages are observed only in one construction (a relative clause attaching into a complex noun phrase [NP]), which is borderline in English too. For other constructions, low attachment is preferred in all languages tested. I propose that what differentiates the complex NP construction is the heaviness of the attachee compared to that of the host configuration. A relative clause is a heavy attachee, and the lower NP alone is small as a host; the relative is therefore better balanced if the whole complex NP is its host. A wide range of facts is accounted for by the principle that a constituent likes to have a sister of its own size. Light constituents will tend to attach low, and heavy ones to attach high, since larger constituents are dominated by higher nodes. A preference for balanced weight is familiar from work on prosodic phrasing. I suggest, therefore, that prosodic processing occurs in parallel with syntactic processing (even in reading) and influences structural ambiguity resolution. Height of attachment ambiguities are resolved by the prosodically motivated same-size-sister constraint. The exceptional behavior of English may be due to its prosodic packaging of a relative pronoun with the adjacent noun, overriding the balance tendency. If this explanation is correct, it is possible that all cross-language variations in parsing preferences are due to cross-language variations in the prosodic component of the competence grammar.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bachenko, J., & Fitzpatrick, E. (1990). A computational grammar of discourse-neutral prosodic phrasing in English. Computational Linguistics, 16, 155-170.
Bader, M. (in press). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In F. Ferreira & J. D. Fodor (Eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bever, T. G., Straub, K., Juliano, C., Shenkman, K., Kim, J., Carrithers, C., McElree, B., & Zamparelli, R. (1989 March). The integrated study of a selectional model of comprehension. Paper presented at the Second Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996a). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 644-695.
Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996b, June). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Deciding between garden path, construal and statistical tuning accounts of parsing. Paper presented at the NIAS Workshop on Computational Models of Human Syntactic Processing, Wassenaar, The Netherlands.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. II). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Corley, M. M. B. (1996). The role of statistics in human sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., & Corley, M. M. B. (1996). In M. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1303-1321.
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fodor, J. D. (1980). Superstrategy. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Studies in psycholinguistics presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fodor, J. D. (in press). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
Fodor, J. D., & Frazier, L. (1980). Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition, 8, 417-459.
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, I. (in press). Garden path reanalysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort. In M. De Vincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Proceedings of AMLaP-96, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (in press). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In F. Ferreira & J. D. Fodor (Eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 1-34.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1988). Parameterizing the language system: Left-vs. right-branching within and across languages. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Gee, P., & Grosjean, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 411-458.
Gibson, E. A. F., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
Gibson, E., Schütze, C. T., & Salomon, P. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
Gilboy, E., & Sopena, J. M. (1996). Segmentation effects in the processing of complex NPs with relative clauses. In M. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gilboy, E., Sopena, J.-M., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
Grosjean, F., & Deschamps, A. (1975). Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l'anglais et du français: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d'hésitation. Phonetica, 31, 144-184.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1997, March). A principled model of modifier attachment. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (in press). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, V. M. (1995). A crosslinguistic comparison of the production of utterances in discourse. Cognition, 54, 169-207.
Igoa, J. M. (1995, April). Parsing decisions and the construal hypothesis: Attachment preferences in primary phrases. Paper presented at the Second Symposium on Psycholinguistics, Tarragona, Spain.
Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1997). Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 247-254.
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
Kubozono, H. (1993). The organization of Japanese prosody. Tokyo, Japan: Kurusio.
Langendoen, D. T. (1975). Finite-state parsing of phrase-structure languages and the status of readjustment rules in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 533-554.
Mazuka, R., & Lust, B. (1990). Parameter setting and parsing: Predictions for crosslinguistic differences in adult and child processing. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Mitchell, D. C., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Challenges to recent theories of cross-linguistic variation in parsing. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mitchell, D., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing. Austin: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Texas.
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., & Zagar, D. (1990). Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores D'Arcais, & R. K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Monnin, P., & Grosjean, F. (1993). Les structures de performance en français: Caractérisation et prédiction. L'Année Psychologique, 93, 9-30.
Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163.
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Selkirk, E. (1997). Constraints on prosodic phrasing and their relevance for right node raising. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Wanner, E. (1980). The ATN and the sausage machine: Which one is baloney? Cognition, 8, 209-225.
Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fodor, J.D. Learning To Parse?. J Psycholinguist Res 27, 285–319 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023258301588
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023258301588