Logačev Pavel, Vasishth Shravan
a Department of Linguistics , University of Potsdam , Potsdam , Germany.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016;69(5):996-1012. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602.
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.
斯韦茨等人(2008年。句法歧义的欠规范:来自自定步速阅读的证据。《记忆与认知》,36(1),201 - 216)提出证据表明,所谓的歧义优势[特拉克斯勒等人(1998年)。附加语附着不是词汇歧义消解的一种形式。《记忆与语言杂志》,39(4),558 - 592],此前已根据无限制竞争模型进行了解释,同样也可以通过假设在任务需求驱动的歧义条件下存在欠规范来解释。具体而言,如果理解问题要求消解歧义,句法分析器往往会进行附着:当问题是关于目标句子的表面方面时,读者倾向于采用欠规范策略。有理由假设策略上的个体差异在这些策略的应用中会起重要作用,因此研究平均行为可能并无信息价值。为了研究充分性加工理论的预测,我们实现了两种欠规范版本:部分规范模型(PSM),它是斯韦茨等人提议的一种实现方式,以及一个更简洁的版本,非规范模型(NSM)。我们评估这两种欠规范对斯韦茨等人数据的相对拟合度;作为基线,我们还拟合了三种假设不存在欠规范的模型。我们发现,一个不存在欠规范的模型比两个欠规范模型的拟合度稍好一些,而NSM模型比PSM模型的拟合度更好。我们将结果解释为缺乏支持欠规范的明确证据;然而,鉴于文献中有相当多关于充分性加工的现有证据,有理由假设可能会出现一些欠规范情况。在此假设下,结果可以解释为NSM优于PSM的初步证据。更一般地说,我们的工作提供了一种在句子理解实时过程模型之间进行选择的方法,这些模型对几个因变量之间的关系做出定性预测。我们相信句子加工研究将从更广泛地使用此类方法中受益匪浅。