Disfluencies, language comprehension, and Tree Adjoining Grammars
Corresponding Author
Fernanda Ferreira
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 488424-1117, USA
[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorEllen F. Lau
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 488424-1117, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKarl G.D. Bailey
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 488424-1117, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Fernanda Ferreira
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 488424-1117, USA
[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorEllen F. Lau
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 488424-1117, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKarl G.D. Bailey
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 488424-1117, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Disfluencies include editing terms such as uh and um as well as repeats and revisions. Little is known about how disfluencies are processed, and there has been next to no research focused on the way that disfluencies affect structure-building operations during comprehension. We review major findings from both computational linguistics and psycholinguistics, and then we summarize the results of our own work which centers on how the parser behaves when it encounters a disfluency. We describe some new research showing that information associated with misarticulated verbs lingers, and which adds to the large body of data on the critical influence of verb argument structures on sentence comprehension. The paper also presents a model of disfluency processing. The parser uses a Tree Adjoining Grammar to build phrase structure. In this approach, filled and unfilled pauses affect the timing of Substitution operations. Repairs and corrections are handled by a mechanism we term “Overlay,” which allows the parser to overwrite an undesired tree with the appropriate, correct tree. This model of disfluency processing highlights the need for the parser to sometimes coordinate the mechanisms that perform garden-path reanalysis with those that do disfluency repair. The research program as a whole demonstrates that it is possible to study disfluencies systematically and to learn how the parser handles filler material and mistakes. It also showcases the power of Tree Adjoining Grammars, a formalism developed by Aravind Joshi which has yielded results in many different areas of linguistics and cognitive science.
References
- Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.
- Arnold, J. E., Fagnano, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Disfluencies signal thee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1) 25–36.
-
Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In
J. Fodor &
F. Fereirra (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1–46).
Dordrecht
: Kluwer.
10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_1 Google Scholar
- Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F. (2001). The disfluent hairy dog: Can syntactic parsing be affected by non-word disfluencies? Poster presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Philadelphia, PA.
- Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F. (2003a). Eye movements and the comprehension of disfluent speech. Poster presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Cambridge, MA.
- Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F. (2003b). Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 183–200.
- Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F. (in press). The disfluent hairy dog: Can syntactic parsing be affected by non-word disfluencies? In J. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), World situated language use: Psycholinguistic, linguistic, and computational perspectives on bridging the product and action traditions. Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
- Berwick, R., & Weinberg, A. (1984). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
- Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognitive development of language. New York : Wiley.
- Blackmer, E. R., & Mitton, J. L. (1991). Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 39, 173–194.
- Bock, J. K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186.
- Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.
- Bortfeld, H., Leon, S., Bloom, J., Schober, M., & Brennan, S. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123–147.
- Brédart, S. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 123–138.
- Brennan, S. E., & Schober, M. F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 274–296.
- Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383–398.
- Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (2001). Age, working memory, and on-line syntactic processing in sentence comprehension. Psychology & Aging, 16, 128–144.
-
Charniak, E., &
Johnson, M. (2001). Edit detection and parsing for transcribed speech.
Proceedings of NAACL.
10.3115/1073336.1073352 Google Scholar
- Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.
-
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language.
Cambridge
: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511620539 Google Scholar
- Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York , NY : Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
- Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.
- Clark, H., & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1–40). Hillsdale , NJ : Erlbaum.
- Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201–242.
- Core, M. G., & Schubert, K. (1999). Speech repairs: A parsing perspective. In Satellite Meeting ICPHS 99 (pp. 47–50).
-
Cutler, A. (1983). Speakers' conceptions of the function of prosody. In
A. Cutler &
D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurement (pp. 79–91).
Heidelberg
: Springer-Verlag.
10.1007/978-3-642-69103-4_7 Google Scholar
- Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
- Devescovi, A., Bates, E., d'Amico, S., Hernandez, A., Marangolo, P., Pizzamiglio, L., et al. (1997). An on-line study of grammaticality judgments in normal and aphasic speakers of Italian. In L. Menn (Ed.), Special issue on cross-linguistic aphasia. Aphasiology, 11(6), 543–579.
- Ferreira, F. (1993). The creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review, 100, 233–253.
- Ferreira, F. (2000). Syntax in language production: An approach using Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In L. Wheeldon (Ed.), Aspects of language production. Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
- Ferreira, F., Anes, M. D., & Horine, M. (1996). Exploring the use of prosody during language comprehension using the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 273–290.
- Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20.
- Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
- Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. (1991a). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.
-
Ferreira, F., &
Henderson, J. M. (1991b). The use of verb subcategorization information in syntactic parsing. In
G. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 305–330). North-Holland.
10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61538-1 Google Scholar
-
Ferreira, F., &
Henderson, J. M. (1998). Syntactic reanalysis, thematic processing, and sentence comprehension. In
J. D. Fodor &
F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 73–100).
Dordrecht
: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_3 Google Scholar
- Ferreira, F., Henderson, J. M., Anes, M. D., Weeks, P. A., Jr., & McFarlane, D. K. (1996). Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 324–335.
- Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–319.
- Fodor, J. D., Ferreira, F., & Lau, E. (2003). A time-course study of garden path reanalysis. Poster presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Cambridge, MA.
-
Fodor, J. D., &
Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In
J. D. Fodor &
F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101–141).
Dordrecht
: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_4 Google Scholar
- Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (2000). Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 25–36.
- Ford, M. (1982). Sentence planning units: Implications for the speaker's representation of meaningful relations underlying sentences. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 798–827). Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
- Fox Tree, J. E. (1995). The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 1995, 34.
- Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners' uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 29(2), 320–326.
- Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
- Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.
- Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 133–175). San Diego , CA : Academic Press.
-
Godfrey, J. J.,
Holliman, E. C., &
McDaniel. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (pp. 517–520).
San Francisco
,
CA
: IEEE.
10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225858 Google Scholar
- Grossman, M., Mickanin, J., Onishi, K., & Hughes, E. (1996). Verb comprehension deficits in probable Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 53, 369–389.
- Hawkins, P. R. (1971). The syntactic location of hesitation pauses. Language and Speech, 14, 277–288.
-
Heeman, P. A., &
Allen, J. (1995). The Trains 93 dialogues.
Trains Technical Note 94–2, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.
10.21236/ADA301012 Google Scholar
- Heeman, P., & Allen, J. (1997). Intonational boundaries, speech repairs, and discourse markers: Modeling spoken dialog. In Proceedings of ACL/EACL, Madrid .
- Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (2004). The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world. New York : Psychology Press.
-
Howell, P., &
Young, K. (1991). The use of prosody in highlighting alteration in repairs from unrestricted speech.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A(3), 733–758.
10.1080/14640749108400994 Google Scholar
-
Joshi A. K., &
Schabes, Y. (1997). Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In
G. Rosenberg &
A. Salomaa (Eds.), Handbook of formal languages (pp. 69–123).
Berlin
: Springer.
10.1007/978-3-642-59126-6_2 Google Scholar
- Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
- Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11(1), 32–38.
- Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153–194.
- Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., & Bienvenue, B. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89, 67–103.
- Kowtko, J. C., & Price, P. J. (1989). Data collection and analysis in the airtravel planning domain. In Proceedings of DARPA Speech and Natural Language Workshop (pp. 119–125).
- Lau, E. F., & Ferreira, F. (submitted) Lingering effects of disfluent material on the comprehension of garden path sentences.
- Levelt, W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.
- Levelt, W. (1984). Spontaneous self-repairs in speech: Processes and representations. In M. P. R. Broecke & A. Cohen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Science (pp. 105–117). Dordrecht : Foris.
-
Levelt, W., &
Cutler, A. (1983). Prosodic marking in speech repair.
Journal of Semantics, 2, 205–217.
10.1093/semant/2.2.205 Google Scholar
- Liberman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In M. Aronoff & R. T. Oehrle (Eds.), Language sound structure: Studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students (pp. 157–233). Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
- Lickley, R. J., & Bard, E. G. (1998). When can listeners detect disfluency in spontaneous speech? Language and Speech, 41(2), 203–226.
- MADCOW. (1992). Multi-site data collection for a spoken language corpus. In Fifth DARPA Speech and Natural Language Workshop (pp. 7–14).
- MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157–201.
- MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
- Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1981). Central processes in speech understanding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, B295, 295–332.
- McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 21, 134–157.
- McKelvie, D. (1998). The syntax of disfluency in spontaneous spoken language. HCRC Research Paper, HCRC/RP-95.
- Mitchell, D. C., & Holmes, V. M. (1985). The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 542–559.
- Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, Univeristy of Maryland.
- Nakatani, C. H., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). A corpus-based study of repair cues in spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(3), 1603–1616.
- Oviatt, S. (1995). Predicting spoken disfluencies during human—computer interaction. Computer Speech and Language, 9, 19–35.
- Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 940–961.
- Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.
- Schafer, A., Carlson, K., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43, 75–105.
- Schacter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362–367.
- Selkirk, E. (1993). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Basil, Blackwell: Oxford .
- Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E. B., & Grimshaw, J. (1987). Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition, 27, 219–246.
- Shriberg, E. E. (1996). Disfluencies in SWITCHBOARD. In Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Addendum (pp. 11–14), Philadelphia , PA .
-
Shriberg, E. E. (2001). To “errrr” is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies.
Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31(1), 153–169.
10.1017/S0025100301001128 Google Scholar
- Smith, V. L., & Clark, H. H. (1993). On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 25–38.
- Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eyemovements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447–481.
- Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain responses indicate immediate use of prosody in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 191–196.
-
Stevenson, S. (1998). Parsing as incremental restructuring. In
J. D. Fodor &
F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 327–363).
Dordrecht
: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_10 Google Scholar
- Stolcke, A., & Shriberg, E. (1996). Statistical language modeling for speech disfluencies. In Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 405–409), Atlanta , GA .
- Stolcke, A., Shriberg, E., Bates, R., Coccaro, N., Jurafsky, D., Martin, R., Meteer, M., Ries, K., Taylor, P., & Van Ess-Dykema, C. (1998). Dialog act modeling for conversational speech. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98 Spring Symposium on Applying Machine Learning to Discourse Processing.
- Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 211–271.
- Tanenhaus, M., Carlson, G., & Trueswell, J. (1989). The role of thematic structure in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3/4), 1211–1234.
- Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
- Trueswell, J. C., & Kim, A. E. (1998). How to prune a garden-path by nipping it in the bud: Fast-priming of verb argument structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102–123.
- Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.
- Van Dyke, J., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285–413.
- van Wijk, C., & Kempen, G. (1987). A dual system for producing self-repairs in spontaneous speech: Evidence from experimentally elicited corrections. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 403–440.
- Williams, E. (1978). Across-the-Board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 31–43.