PROCESSING CROSSED AND NESTED DEPENDENCIES - AN AUTOMATION PERSPECTIVE ON THE PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESULTS
PROCESSING CROSSED AND NESTED DEPENDENCIES - AN AUTOMATION PERSPECTIVE ON THE PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESULTS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/01690969008402095
复制
发表时间：
1990-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
JOSHI, AK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
JOSHI, AK
荷兰语和德语（以及西日耳曼语）中的小句尾动词簇已经在不同的句法理论中得到了广泛的研究。标准荷兰语更喜欢交叉依赖（动词和它们的参数之间），而标准德语更喜欢嵌套依赖。最近，Bach、Brown和Marslen-Wilson（1986）研究了荷兰语和德语之间的这些差异对句子处理复杂性的影响，包括交叉或嵌套依赖。简单地说，他们的结果表明荷兰语比德语“更容易”，从而表明下推自动机（PDA）不能成为人类解析机制的通用基础。他们提供了一个解释的不足，PDA的依赖性允许听者构建的部分解释的种类。出于他们的结果和他们对这些结果的讨论，我们引入了部分解释（PPI）的原则，并提出了一个自动机，嵌入式下推自动机（EPDA），它允许处理与PPI一致的交叉和嵌套依赖关系。我们表明，有适当的复杂性措施（在巴赫等人的讨论动机。1986），根据该方法，交叉依赖关系的处理比嵌套依赖关系的处理更容易。我们还讨论了混合依赖的情况。EPDA对交叉和嵌套依赖关系处理的描述是重要的，因为EPDA被认为与树邻接文法（TAG）完全等价，TAG也能够为荷兰语的交叉依赖关系提供语言学上的分析（Kroch Santorini，出版中）。另外两种语法形式主义（Head Grammars：Pollard，1984; Combinatory Grammars：Steedman，1987）也能够为荷兰语的交叉依赖提供分析，最近已被证明在生成能力方面与TAG相当，这一事实进一步增强了这种重要性。我们还简要地讨论了有关EPDA及其相关语法的一些问题，以及这些相关语法与相应的“语言学”语法之间的关系。
The clause-final verbal clusters in Dutch and German (and, in general, in West Germanic languages) have been studied extensively in different syntactic theories. Standard Dutch prefers crossed dependencies (between verbs and their arguments), whereas Standard German prefers nested dependencies. Recently, Bach, Brown, and Marslen-Wilson (1986) investigated the consequences of these differences between Dutch and German for the processing complexity of sentences, containing either crossed or nested dependencies. Stated very simply, their results show that Dutch is “easier” than German, thus showing that the push-down automaton (PDA) cannot be the universal basis for the human parsing mechanism. They provide an explanation for the inadequacy of PDA in terms of the kinds of partial interpretations the dependencies allow the listener to construct. Motivated by their results and their discussion of these results, we introduce a principle of partial interpretation (PPI) and present an automaton, embedded push-down automaton (EPDA), which permits processing of crossed and nested dependencies consistent with PPI. We show that there are appropriate complexity measures (motivated by the discussion in Bach et al., 1986) according to which the processing of crossed dependencies is easier than the processing of nested dependencies. We also discuss a case of mixed dependencies. This EPDA characterisation of the processing of crossed and nested dependencies is significant because EPDAs are known to beexactlyequivalent to Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAG), which are also capable of providing a linguistically motivated analysis for the crossed dependencies of Dutch (Kroch ∧ Santorini, in press). This significance is further enhanced by the fact that the two other grammatical formalisms (Head Grammars: Pollard, 1984; and Combinatory Grammars: Steedman, 1987), also capable of providing analysis for crossed dependencies of Dutch, have been shown recently to be equivalent to TAGs in their generative power. We also discuss briefly some issues concerning the EPDAs and their associated grammars, and the relationship between these associated grammars and the corresponding “linguistic” grammars.