首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Retrieval Interference in Syntactic Processing: The Case of Reflexive Binding in English
【2h】

Retrieval Interference in Syntactic Processing: The Case of Reflexive Binding in English

机译:句法处理中的检索干扰:以英语为例的反身绑定

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

It has been proposed that in online sentence comprehension the dependency between a reflexive pronoun such as himself/herself and its antecedent is resolved using exclusively syntactic constraints. Under this strictly syntactic search account, Principle A of the binding theory—which requires that the antecedent c-command the reflexive within the same clause that the reflexive occurs in—constrains the parser's search for an antecedent. The parser thus ignores candidate antecedents that might match agreement features of the reflexive (e.g., gender) but are ineligible as potential antecedents because they are in structurally illicit positions. An alternative possibility accords no special status to structural constraints: in addition to using Principle A, the parser also uses non-structural cues such as gender to access the antecedent. According to cue-based retrieval theories of memory (e.g., Lewis and Vasishth, ), the use of non-structural cues should result in increased retrieval times and occasional errors when candidates partially match the cues, even if the candidates are in structurally illicit positions. In this paper, we first show how the retrieval processes that underlie the reflexive binding are naturally realized in the Lewis and Vasishth () model. We present the predictions of the model under the assumption that both structural and non-structural cues are used during retrieval, and provide a critical analysis of previous empirical studies that failed to find evidence for the use of non-structural cues, suggesting that these failures may be Type II errors. We use this analysis and the results of further modeling to motivate a new empirical design that we use in an eye tracking study. The results of this study confirm the key predictions of the model concerning the use of non-structural cues, and are inconsistent with the strictly syntactic search account. These results present a challenge for theories advocating the infallibility of the human parser in the case of reflexive resolution, and provide support for the inclusion of agreement features such as gender in the set of retrieval cues.
机译:已经提出,在在线句子理解中,反身代词(例如他/她自己)与其先行词之间的依赖关系可以通过专门的句法约束来解决。在这种严格的句法搜索条件下,绑定理论的原则A(要求先行词c-命令在与反身词出现在同一子句中的自反词)限制了解析器对先行词的搜索。解析器因此忽略了可能与反身的一致特征(例如性别)匹配但由于其在结构上处于非法位置而不适合作为潜在先行词的候选先行词。另一种可能性不对结构约束赋予特殊地位:除了使用原则A之外,解析器还使用诸如性别之类的非结构线索来访问该先行词。根据基于提示的记忆检索理论(例如Lewis和Vasishth等),使用非结构性提示会导致检索时间增加,并且当候选人部分匹配线索时,即使候选人处于结构上非法的位置,偶尔也会出现错误。 。在本文中,我们首先说明在Lewis和Vasishth()模型中自然实现反身绑定基础的检索过程。我们在假设检索过程中同时使用结构性和非结构性线索的前提下给出了模型的预测,并对以前的经验研究进行了批判性分析,这些经验研究未能找到使用非结构性线索的证据,表明这些失败可能是II型错误。我们使用这种分析和进一步建模的结果来激发我们在眼动追踪研究中使用的新的经验设计。这项研究的结果证实了有关使用非结构线索的模型的关键预测,并且与严格的句法搜索方式不一致。这些结果对主张在反身解决情况下人类解析器的绝对正确性的理论提出了挑战,并为将诸如性别之类的协议特征纳入检索线索集提供了支持。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号