A Unified Process Model of Syntactic and Semantic Error Recovery in Sentence Understanding

The development of models of human sentence processing has traditionally followed one of two paths. Either the model posited a sequence of processing modules, each with its own task-specific knowledge (e.g., syntax and semantics), or it posited a single processor utilizing different types of knowledge inextricably integrated into a monolithic knowledge base. Our previous work in modeling the sentence processor resulted in a model in which different processing modules used separate knowledge sources but operated in parallel to arrive at the interpretation of a sentence. One highlight of this model is that it offered an explanation of how the sentence processor might recover from an error in choosing the meaning of an ambiguous word. Recent experimental work by Laurie Stowe strongly suggests that the human sentence processor deals with syntactic error recovery using a mechanism very much like that proposed by our model of semantic error recovery. Another way to interpret Stowe's finding is this: the human sentence processor consists of a single unified processing module utilizing multiple independent knowledge sources in parallel. A sentence processor built upon this architecture should at times exhibit behavior associated with modular approaches, and at other times act like an integrated system. In this paper we explore some of these ideas via a prototype computational model of sentence processing called COMPERE, and propose a set of psychological experiments for testing our theories.

Having Your Cake and Eating It Too: Autonomy and Interaction in a Model of Sentence Processing

Is the human language understander a collection of modular processes operating with relative autonomy, or is it a single integrated process? This ongoing debate has polarized the language processing community, with two fundamentally different types of model posited, and with each camp concluding that the other is wrong. One camp puts forth a model with separate processors and distinct knowledge sources to explain one body of data, and the other proposes a model with a single processor and a homogeneous, monolithic knowledge source to explain the other body of data. In this paper we argue that a hybrid approach which combines a unified processor with separate knowledge sources provides an explanation of both bodies of data, and we demonstrate the feasibility of this approach with the computational model called COMPERE. We believe that this approach brings the language processing community significantly closer to offering human-like language processing systems.

Uniform Representations for Syntax-Semantics Arbitration

Psychological investigations have led to considerable insight into the working of the human language comprehension system. In this article, we look at a set of principles derived from psychological findings to argue for a particular organization of linguistic knowledge along with a particular processing strategy and present a computational model of sentence processing based on those principles. Many studies have shown that human sentence comprehension is an incremental and interactive process in which semantic and other higher-level information interacts with syntactic information to make informed commitments as early as possible at a local ambiguity. Early commitments may be made by using top-down guidance from knowledge of different types, each of which must be applicable independently of others. Further evidence from studies of error recovery and delayed decisions points toward an arbitration mechanism for combining syntactic and semantic information in resolving ambiguities. In order to account for all of the above, we propose that all types of linguistic knowledge must be represented in a common form but must be separable so that they can be applied independently of each other and integrated at processing time by the arbitrator. We present such a uniform representation and a computational model called COMPERE based on the representation and the processing strategy.