Compare and contrast the Garden Path Model and the Constraint Based Model of sentence processing. What are their comparative strengths and failings?

Human sentence processing is an intricate procedure governed by syntactic and linguistic communication regulations. The end of all research in this field is to detect how people use linguistic communication. ( Ferreira, Christianson and Hollingworth 2001 ) . For worlds linguistic communication is an indispensable portion of what entails being a homo and the chief characteristic that differentiates us from other existences. Life without linguistic communication is hard to grok since it is what dominates our societal and cognitive activity. The Psychology of linguistic communication concerns itself with the psychological processing that takes topographic point when pass oning with other people.

There are two chief degrees of analysis in the comprehension of sentences. First there is the analysis of the syntactical construction of each sentence, which is known technically as ‘parsing ‘ . Second there is the survey of the intended significance of each sentence, which is known as ‘pragmatics ‘ . Sentence processing research investigates how people process the agreement of words in a sentence concentrating peculiarly on syntactic ambiguity. ( REF )

This essay inside informations and evaluates two theories that dominate research on syntactic ambiguity declaration i.e. parsing: the garden way theoretical account and the constraint-based theoretical account.

Harmonizing to the two-stage theory of the garden way theoretical account, the sentence processor ab initio adopts a individual analysis utilizing merely a restricted scope of information. ( REF )

In contrast, restraint based theories claim that multiple analyses of a syntactic ambiguity are activated in analogue and the processor instantly uses all beginnings of information. ( REF )

An Overview of the Garden Path Model:

The most outstanding and influential psychological theory of sentence processing is the Garden Path Model ( Frazier, 1987a ; Frazier & A ; Rayner, 1982 ) .

The garden way theoretical account is an independent 2-stage parser in which initial fond regards are made strictly on the footing of syntactic information.

Harmonizing to the garden way theoretical account, the sentence processor when covering with temporarily equivocal sentences ab initio uses merely information about the syntactic construction of the sentence to follow a individual analysis. Other non-structural beginnings of information such as the semantics, context and frequence of constructions are in usage during ulterior phases of processing. When the initial analysis is contradictory with the information that becomes available subsequently, the processor reanalyzes and therefore treating trouble arises.

The garden way theoretical account is governed by two chief parsing schemes that determine people ‘s initial fond regard in impermanent equivocal sentences: ‘late closing ‘ and ‘minimal fond regard ‘ . Late closing refers to the procedure of seeking to attach new parts of a sentence to the phrase or clause that is presently being processed. ( SYK OF LANG REF ) . For illustration in the sentence ‘John went to dinner with the girl of the professor who was named in the newspaper last hebdomad ‘ , who was named in the newspaper the girl or the professor? If it is decided that it was the professor who was named in the newspaper, the rule of late closing has been followed. The comparative clause of ‘who was named ‘ was attached to the ‘professor ‘ as it is the most late processed noun phrase.

The minimum fond regard rule provinces that new incoming stuff should be attached in such a manner that is syntactically legal and consequences in the least figure of syntactic nodes in the phrase construction tree. ( SYK OF LANG REF )

If there is a struggle between the two schemes, minimum fond regard takes precedency over late closing.

An overview of the restraint based theoretical account

The constraint-based theoretical account in contrast is an synergistic one-stage theoretical account. Harmonizing to the constraint-based theoretical account the processor uses multiple beginnings of information including syntactic, semantic, discourse and frequence based, called restraints. One of the premises of the restraint theoretical account is that sentence reading is the merchandise of interaction between multiple constraints/sources of information, therefore semantic, matter-of-fact and syntactic information are taken into consideration from the start ( MacDonald et al, 1994 ; Trueswell, et al 1994 ) . .

Although processing is by and large rather easy, when two analyses have an equal activation, this consequences in competition. This would therefore consequence in treating trouble as it takes a long clip before the right analysis is recognized and the wrong one inhibited. There is no signifier of reanalysis in this account as all analyses are activated from the beginning of the ambiguity therefore disambiguation would non necessitate the building of analyses that were non ab initio considered.

NEEDS 2 BE FINISHED! ! ! ! ! !

There has been a big sum of research proving the two opposing theoretical accounts. These surveies investigate weather the usage of non-syntactic information is delayed comparative to syntactic information.

The grounds for the garden way theoretical account comes from a significant figure of experiments. Rayner et Al ( 1982 ) conducted an eye-movement survey from which they concluded that reading clip was longer when a sentence was inconsistent with the late closing rule. They presented participants with the sentences:

Since Jay ever jogs a stat mi and a half this seems a short distance to him.

Since Jay ever jogs a stat mi and a half seems a really short distance to him.

The first sentence is consistent with late closing and therefore does non do the processor any jobs. The 2nd sentence is non wholly consistent with late closing ; the processor tries to attach the noun phrase ‘a stat mi and a half ‘ to the first verb ‘jogs ‘ . When we reach ‘seems ‘ it is clear that this construction is incorrect and the reader has been led up the garden way. The word ‘seems ‘ is a disambiguating part and Frazier and Rayner found that first arrested development in disambiguating part is longer for the 2nd sentence compared to the first.

Rayner and Frazier ( 1987 ) besides monitored the oculus motions of participants, to prove the minimum fond regard rule, when reading sentences such as:

The felon confessed his wickednesss harmed many people

The felon confessed that his wickednesss harmed many people.

When the participant begins to read the first sentence, minimum fond regard leads to the usage of the construction that contains the fewest figure of nodes. So in this illustration when we get to the words ‘his wickednesss ‘ is the object of ‘confessed ‘ , i.e. we are led to believe that the felon confessed his wickednesss. Hence the reader is led up the garden-path in this first sentence and must so reanalyze when they read ‘harmed ‘ . Sentence two on the other manus does non take to a garden way because of the word ‘that ‘ which blocks the object analysis of the sentence. When the reader gets to ‘that ‘ he treats the noun phrase ‘his wickednesss ‘ as a topic of complement ‘harmed many people ‘ . Rayner and Frazier found that readers had a job when they reached ‘harmed ‘ in sentence one but non in sentence 2.

Evaluation etc

In consecutive 2 phase theoretical accounts such as the garden way theoretical account, merely syntactic information controls the initial analysis, and there is a penchant for a 2nd phase that uses the semantic information.

In parallel constraint-based theoretical accounts use multiple analyses from the start and both syntactic and non-syntactic information is used together to trip alternate representations. From the huge research conducted on both theoretical accounts it is hard to claim any one theoretical account being the better history for sentence processing.

The garden way theoretical account can be classed a strong theoretical account as it provides a simple and consistent history of cardinal procedures involved in sentence processing. The constraint-based theoretical account besides has cardinal strengths ; in peculiar it carries the impression that there can be changing grades of support for different syntactic readings of a sentence. As person reads a sentence, the roll uping syntactic and semantic grounds bit by bit leads the reader to bring forth a definite syntactic reading. It seems efficient that readers should utilize all the relevant information from the start when seeking to work out the syntactic construction of a sentence.

Those in favor of the Garden Path Model argue that the effects that are claimed to back up restraint based theoretical accounts originate because the 2nd phase of parsing Begins really rapidly and that many experiments that are supposed to be looking at the first phase are in fact looking at the 2nd phase of parsing. Any interaction observed is happening at this 2nd phase that begins really early in treating. They argue that experiments back uping restraint based theoretical accounts are methodologically flawed and that restraint based theoretical accounts fail to account for the full scope of informations.

On the other manus those in favor of the constraint-based theoretical account argue that research workers favoring the garden way theoretical account usage techniques that are non sensitive plenty to observe the interactions involved and that the non-syntactic restraints used are excessively weak. Supporters of the constraint-based theoretical account argue that the theory of minimum fond regard does non work for all sentences. ( ALTMANN ET AL STUDY ) .

Carreiras and Clifton ( 1993 ) found grounds that readers do non ever follow the rule of ‘late closing ‘ . They presented sentences such as ‘The undercover agent shot the girl of the colonel who was standing on the balcony ‘ If the reader was to follow the rule of ‘late closing ‘ , this sentence would be interpreted as the colonel instead than the girl that is stood on the balcony. However they did non strongly prefer either reading, which is contrary to the rules of the garden way theoretical account. When the same sentence was presented in Spanish, there was a clear penchant for presuming that it was the girl who was stood at the balcony. This once more is contrary to theoretical anticipations. ( cog syk a pupil enchiridion ref )

Harmonizing to the garden way theoretical account, anterior context should non act upon the initial parsing of an equivocal sentence. However several surveies have been conducted since that concludes that context does impact the initial parsing procedure. For illustration Tannenhaus et Al ( 1995 ) made participants listen to the equivocal sentence ‘Put the apple on the towel in the box ‘ and so recorded participants oculus motions to detect how the sentence was interpreted. If the rules of the garden way theoretical account were followed the sentence would be interpreted so that it was understood that the apple should be placed on the towel because this is the simplest syntactic construction. When the context did non take the ambiguity, participants did so construe the sentence as: the apple should be placed on the towel. However when the ocular context was two apples, one on a towel and the other on a serviette, participants quickly interpreted ‘on the towel ‘ as a manner of placing which apple was to be moved and so did non do the error of concentrating on the towel presented on its ain. Spivey, Tanenhaus, Eberhard and Sedivy ( 2002 ) besides conducted a similar experiment to the one described above and came to the same decision ; context has a big consequence on oculus motion The form of oculus motions was really similar for unambiguous sentences and for equivocal sentences with a less confusing context.

There are assorted restrictions with the constraint-based theoretical account. First the theoretical account is non right in its position that all relevant restraints or beginnings of information are used instantly. ( Boland and Blodgett 2001 EXPAND ) . Second within McDonald et Al ‘s ( 1994 ) theory, small is said about the elaborate procedures involved in bring forthing syntactic construction for complex sentences. Besides it is assumed within the constraint-based theory that assorted representations are formed in parallel with most of them later being rejected. However there is small grounds to turn out this premise.