modularity what’s the big deal? (1983) (not 1983)

Modularity

What’s the Big Deal?

(1983)

(not 1983)

• Properties of Input Modules– Domain Specificity: e.g. color or pitch-sensitive cells, duplex

perception

– Mandatory Processing of Input

– Speed

– Impenetrability to Conscious Inspection: phoneme-internal details rapidly lost

– Encapsulation:

– Shallow Outputs:

Impenetrability

(Posner 1978)

Impenetrability

Encapsulation

• “At least some analyzers are encapsulated with respect to at least some sorts of feedback.” (e.g. apparent motion perception)

Encapsulation

• “…a point of principle: feedback works only to the extent that the information which perception supplies is redundant. […] Feedback is effective only to the extent that, prior to the analysis of the stimulus, the perceiver knows quite a lot about what the stimulus is going to be like.” (p. 67)

Encapsulation

• “Now, it is a question of considerable theoretical interest whether, and to what extent, predictive analysis plays a role in parsing; but this issue must be sharply distinguished from the question whether the parser is informationally encapsulated. Counterexamples to encapsulation must exhibit the sensitivity of the parser to information that is not specified internal to the language recognition module, and constraints on syntactic well-formedness are paradigms of information that does not satisfy this condition. […] as things stand I know of no convincing evidence that syntactic parsing is ever guided by the subject’s appreciation of semantic context or the ‘real world’ background.” (p. 78)

Interaction vs. Autonomy

Lexical Access & Sentence Parsing

Boland & Cutler 1996

• The debate over interaction/autonomy in lexical access focuses on the generation (activation) stage

• There is broad agreement that context affects lexical choices once multiple candidates have been generated

Cross-Modal Priming

The guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the reception

(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)

Cross-Modal Priming

The guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the reception

(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)

Cross-Modal Priming

• How could context prevent a contextually unsupported meaning from being accessed?

Cross-Modal Priming

• Conflicting results over effect of context on multiple access

• Tabossi (1998)

– The violent hurricane did not damage the ships which were in the port, one of the best equipped along the coast.

– Contexts are highly constraining, prime a specific feature of the target meaning.

Autonomy vs. Interaction

• “In the parsing literature, use of higher-level information to resolve lower-level decisions constitutes interaction, so Multiple Output models are considered interactive because higher-level information is used in the selection process.”(Boland & Cutler, 1996, p. 313)

• “In word recognition, in contrast, Multiple Output models are considered clearly autonomous because a process is not considered to be interactive unless higher-level information actually affects the way that alternatives are generated within the system, ruling out certain candidates irrespective of their compatibility with bottom-up information.”(Boland & Cutler, 1996, p. 313)

• “This type of autonomy, which has characterized the debate within the domain of word recognition, is also the definition that Fodor (1983) used in his argument for modularity in mental processing: ‘a system [is] autonomous by being encapsulated, by not having access to facts that other systems know about.’ (p. 73)”(Boland & Cutler, 1996, p. 313)

Sentence Recognition

• Two problems– Incremental generation of candidate structures

– Selection among competing alternatives (if more than one available)

– Early focus on generation problem, how to use grammar• Templates

• Ambiguity as test of templates

• Shift to focus on ambiguity in its own right

• Structural ambiguities (to name but a few…)

– The horse raced past the barn [… fell]

– The man gave the boy the dog […bit a cookie]

– The software manufacturers sell nowadays […is overpriced]

– Put the frog on the napkin […into the box]

– The students knew the answer [… was in the back of the book]

– While the farmer was hunting the deer [… ran into the forest]

• 1970’s accounts of ambiguity resolution (Kimball, Frazier & Fodor)

– Generalizations about ambiguity resolution (i.e., selection) result from the nature of the generation process

– Search characterized as a ‘race’ - structural simplicity is an emergent property

• Minimal Attachment• Late Closure/Right Association

• not viewed as principles that govern competition among alternatives• The claims about autonomy are therefore (I think) claims about the

generation process

The Garden Path Theory

• Question: what information is used, and when, to construct syntactic representations?

• Focus is on use of different information sources in resolving structurally ambiguous sentences

• Claim (e.g. Frazier, 1987):– many different types of information are ultimately used (syntactic,

semantic, pragmatic, probabilistic)

– but syntactic information is used first/fastest

• Argument #1: Strong contextual biases are ineffective (Ferreira & Clifton, 1986)John worked as a reporter for a newspaper. He knew a major story was brewing over the mayor scandal. He went to his editors with a tape and some photos because he needed their approval to go ahead with the story. He ran a tape for one of his editors, and he showed some photos to the other.(a) The editor played the tape agreed the story was big.(b) The editor played the tape and agreed the story was big.The other editor urged John to be cautious.

• Argument #2: Strong plausibility biases are ineffective (Ferreira & Clifton, 1986)

(a) The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.(b) The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

• Argument #3: Ignoring argument structure information (Mitchell, 1987):– After the audience had applauded the actors/

sat down for a well-deserved drink.

– After the audience had departed the actors/sat down for a well-deserved drink.

• Slowdown in first display in depart condition; slowdown in second display in applaud condition.

• This study much criticized in later work by Boland and others

Challenges to Autonomy

1. (Initial) selection process is governed by non-structural information

a) Referential support (Crain, Steedman, Altmann)

b) Semantic plausibility

c) Lexical/structural frequency

2. Generation is conditioned by non-structural information

a) Syntactic vs. semantic anomalies (Kim et al., 2003)

b) Unsupported interpretations (Duffy et al., 1989; Oakhill & Garnham, 1987)

(Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994)

By phrase - cost of ambiguityAnimates: 128msInanimates: 29ms

(Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994)

But…

(Clifton et al., 2003)

(1983)

(not 1983)

• Properties of Input Modules– Domain Specificity: e.g. color or pitch-sensitive cells, duplex

perception

– Mandatory Processing of Input

– Speed

– Impenetrability to Conscious Inspection: phoneme-internal details rapidly lost

– Encapsulation

– Shallow Outputs:

Generation vs. Selection

• Boland & Cutler ‘96

– At lexical level, autonomy/interaction controversy focuses on generation

– At syntactic level, autonomy/interaction controversy focuses on selection

Autonomy in Generation

Argument from ERP Diagnosis

• ERP violation paradigm

– The pizza had been delivered by …

– The man had been delivering the …

– The pizza had been delivering the …

(Kim, Chen, Ruppey, & Osterhout, 2003)

Argument from ERP Diagnosis

• ERP violation paradigm

– The pizza had been delivered by …

– The man had been delivering the …

– The pizza had been delivering the …

(Kim, Chen, Ruppey, & Osterhout, 2003)

P600 to Semantic Anomaly

• Plausible

– De muizen die voor de kat vluchtten renden door de kamer.The mice that from the cat fled ran through the room

• Implausible

– De kat die voor de muizen vluchtte rende door de kamer.The cat that from the mice fled ran through the room

(Kolk, Chwilla, van Herten, & Oor, 2003)

• Update (CNS 2004)

– ‘Instruction’ reduces P600 effect (Vissers et al.)

– Irreversible sentences (‘the tree that played in the park…’)N400 + P600

– Familiarity of VP (van Herten et al.)(‘John saw that the bulls {milked the cows, caught the cows}

P600 N400 (mostly)

• English

– For breakfast, the boys would only eat toast and jam.

– For breakfast, the eggs would only eat toast and jam.

– For breakfast, the boys would only bury toast and jam.

(Kuperberg, Sitnikova, Caplan & Holcomb, 2003)

Word Recall

• ‘Supporting contexts’ for word recall

– The barber [who watched the woman] trimmed the moustache.

– The woman [who watched the barber] trimmed the moustache.

(Duffy et al., 1989)

Question Answering

• Answering questions following ellipsis sentences

– The elderly patient had been examined by the doctor.

– The child had too.The nurse had too.

– Did the doctor examine the… child (8% error)… nurse (25% error)

(Oakhill & Garnham, 1987)

More on Selection

Frequency

Referential Context

Frequency

searched

Frequency

searched

past tense past participle

Frequency

searched

Frequency

searched

past tense past participleaccused

Frequency

• the thief searched …

• the thief accused …

Frequency

• the thief searched by the policeman

• the thief accused by the policeman

(Trueswell, 1996)

Verb Subcategorization Frequency

• English NP/S-complement ambiguity

– The student knew the answer was wrong.

– NP-biasThe student forgot (that) the answer was in…also: hear, discover, understand

– S-biasThe student hoped (that) the answer was in …also: claim, believe, suspect

Frequency II (NP-S)

(Trueswell, Tanenhaus & Kello, 1993)

Frequency in PP-attachment

• Corpus frequencies

(Spivey-Knowlton & Sedivy, 1995)

• Sentence completions

– Action verbs• The burglar blew open the safe with … [96% VP-attached]

• The burglar blew open a safe with … [90% VP-attached]

– Psych/perception verbs• The woman expected the bus with … [54% VP-attached]

• The woman expected a bus with … [24% VP-attached]

Frequency

• Where do frequency effects come from?

– Lexical items?

– Surface templates?

– Production/semantic motivations?

Production & Comprehension

• Production

– [director that] [movie] [pleased] (theme-exp)

– [movie that] [director] [watched] (agent-theme)

• Comprehension

– The director that the movie pleased had received …

– The movie that the director watched had received …

Interactivity in Parsing

How limited?

Why limited?

(Long Lost…) Binding Study

• Materials

– Two types of supporting context

– Verb preceding pronoun should allow reflexive (BS’s problem)

– Fillers are very similar to targets, lots of reflexive anaphors

• Strategy

– Run preliminary version of study later this week - ourselves and others

– Analyze & write-up preliminary results

– Discuss further refinement of materials post semester

Frequency

• Ambiguity resolution affected by relative frequency of alternatives

– Morphological ambiguity (searched vs. searched)

– Argument structure alternations (believe NP vs. believe CP)

– etc.

Frequency

• Ambiguity resolution affected by relative frequency of alternatives

– Morphological ambiguity (searched vs. searched)

– Argument structure alternations (believe NP vs. believe CP)

– etc.

– Japanese scope marking in questions?

Frequency

• Could frequency effects derive from something else?

– Gennari & MacDonald 2004: object relatives and theme-experiencer verbs

– Spivey-Knowlton &Sedivy 1995: PP attachments with actional vs. psych verbs

– Object/subject choice: ‘while Mary was mending the sock fell…’

– NP/S complements: ‘The students knew the answer was…’

– Main verb/reduced relatives: ‘The defendant examined…’

– CP complement/modifier: ‘The journalist heard the report that…’

Production & Comprehension

• Production

– [director that] [movie] [pleased] (theme-exp)

– [movie that] [director] [watched] (agent-theme)

• Comprehension

– The director that the movie pleased had received …

– The movie that the director watched had received …

(Gennari & MacDonald, 2004)

• Sentence completions

– Action verbs• The burglar blew open the safe with … [96% VP-attached]

• The burglar blew open a safe with … [90% VP-attached]

– Psych/perception verbs• The woman expected the bus with … [54% VP-attached]

• The woman expected a bus with … [24% VP-attached]

Referential Context

• Argument #1: Strong contextual biases are ineffective (Ferreira & Clifton, 1986)John worked as a reporter for a newspaper. He knew a major story was brewing over the mayor scandal. He went to his editors with a tape and some photos because he needed their approval to go ahead with the story. He ran a tape for one of his editors, and he showed some photos to the other.(a) The editor played the tape agreed the story was big.(b) The editor played the tape and agreed the story was big.The other editor urged John to be cautious.

Presuppositions of Definites

• Principle of Parsimony (Crain & Steedman, 1985)– “If there is a reading that carries fewer unsatisfied but consistent

presuppositions or entailments than any other, then […] that reading will be adopted as most plausible by the hearer, and the presuppositions in question will be incorporated in his or her model.” (p. 333)

• RSVP reading study (grammaticality judgment task: Crain, 1980)– The teachers taught by the Berlitz method passed the test.

– The children taught by the Berlitz method passed the test.

– Teachers taught by the Berlitz method passed the test.

– Children taught by the Berlitz method passed the test.

• Complement vs. Relative Clause

– Contexts• One woman: A psychologist was counseling a man and a woman. He was

worried about one of them but not about the other.

• Two women: A psychologist was counseling two women. He was worried about one of them but not about the other.

– The psychologist told the woman that he was having trouble with {her husband, to visit him again}

(Altmann & Steedman 1988, based on Crain 1980)

• Complement vs. Relative Clause

– Contexts• One woman: A psychologist was counseling a man and a woman. He was

worried about one of them but not about the other.

• Two women: A psychologist was counseling two women. He was worried about one of them but not about the other.

– The psychologist told the woman that he was having trouble with {her husband, to visit him again}

(Altmann & Steedman 1988, based on Crain 1980)

• Strong Interaction

– “According to the strong interaction hypothesis, semantics and context can ‘prescribe’ specific courses of action to syntactic processing, actively restricting the search space within which it operates, by affecting, for example, the order in which rules of grammar are to be tried, or even by entirely ruling some of them out.”

• Weak Interaction

– “According to [the weak] version, syntax autonomously proposes analyses, while semantics and context merely dispose among the alternatives offered.”

(Altmann & Steedman 1988)

Strong Interaction

• How could semantics or context affect generation, by either

– Preventing generation of a syntactic analysis, OR

– Proposing a syntactic analysis

• Complement/Relative ambiguity

– Complement SupportingAn off-duty fireman was talking to a man and a woman. He was telling them how serious the situation had been when their house had caught fire. The fireman had risked his life to rescue the woman while the man had waited outside.He told the woman that he’d risked his life for many people in similar fires.

– Relative SupportingAn off-duty fireman was talking to two women. He was telling them how serious the situation had been when their house had caught fire. The fireman had risked his life to rescue one of the women while the other had waited outside.He told the woman that he’d risked his life for many people in similar fires.

(Altmann, Garnham, & Dennis, 1992)

• Complement/Relative ambiguity

– Relative SupportingAn off-duty fireman was talking to two women. He was telling them how serious the situation had been when their house had caught fire. The fireman had risked his life to rescue one of the women while the other had waited outside.He told the woman that he’d risked his life for many people in similar fires.

– Results

a. Relative clause context takes away garden-path effect in first pass timesb. …but does not take away garden-path effect in proportion of regressions

(Altmann, Garnham, & Dennis, 1992)

Two Types of Context

• Semantic context presented linguistically

– Requires construction of mental model

– Requires retention in memory

• Semantic context presented visually

– Representation/memorization component is trivial

– Do need to know what is ‘relevant’

Head-mounted eye-tracker

(Tanenhaus et al., 1995)

• Implication

– “Our results demonstrate that in natural contexts, people seek to establish reference with respect to their behavioral goals during the earliest moments of linguistic processing. Moreover, referentially relevant non-linguistic information immediately affects the manner in which the linguistic input is initially structured. Given these results, approaches to language comprehension that assign a central role to encapsulated linguistic subsystems are unlikely to prove fruitful.” (p. 1634)

– Do these results imply strong interactivity?

(Tanenhaus et al., 1995)

(Trueswell et al. 1999)

QuickTime™ and aVideo decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

“Put the hippo on the towel in the basket”

“Put the bear on the plate in the box”

“Put the frog on the napkin in the pot”

“Put the hippo on the towel in the basket”

5-year Old

Kindergarten Path Effect

• Why are the children failing to act as adults do on the 2-referent context?

– Overall VP-attachment bias, stronger than adults (due to minimal attachment, or to statistical bias of put for a location argument)

– Unable to take advantage of referential context

– Insensitive to definiteness

– Unable to revise initial commitments/plans of action

How Representative are VW Studies?

• Strong context effects occur in narrowly constrained situations, where

– Prior material generates expectation for one variant of an ambiguity, with sufficient specificity to predict individual words

– Context is constrained enough such that

• Specific expectation can be elicited (i.e. notice ‘Oops, there are two apples in this scene, which one can he be referring to?’)

• There is a good understanding of what are the relevant objects in the visual context

– “… visual stimuli can combine with linguistic stimuli in a manner that effectively constrains the referential domain in ways that may be unrepresentative of the challenges that readers and listeners face when dealing language about displaced objects and events” (Pickering, McElree, & Garrod, 2004)

• “Second, the effects of the objects on processing an utterance may be exacerbated by the small number of objects presented (typically about four). Presumably, small sets are necessary because larger sets would increase memory demands (both for the retention of the objects and their locations) and would dilute effects. However, small sets enable particular strategies that may be optimal for the experimental task but not necessarily representative of general operations involved in processing language. For instance, participants may circumvent standard processing operations by developing strategies based on a limited number of representations held in working memory. Immediate effects that depend on properties of the paradigm cannot be used to provide strong support for interactive theories of comprehension.” (Pickering, McElree, & Garrod, 2004)

• Effects of informational encapsulation due to

– Architecture

– Computation

Memory

Processing Overload

• RC/RC center embedding

– The school board which the teachers who were neglecting the students had angered troubled the superintendent.

A Contrast (Gibson 1998)

• Relative Clause within a Sentential Complement (RC SC):

The fact [CP that the employee [RC who the manager hired] stole office supplies] worried the executive.

• Sentential Complement within a Relative Clause (SC RC):

#The executive [RC who the fact [CP that the employee stole office supplies] worried] hired the manager.

RC SC is easier to process than SC RC

[SC that the employee [RC who the manager hired] stole

[RC who the fact [SC that the employee stole office supplies] worried]

[SC that the employee [RC who the manager hired] stole

[RC who the fact [SC that the employee stole office supplies] worried]

Complexity Measures

• Memory cost associated with

– Incomplete syntactic dependencies (prediction, memory cost)

• Number

• Length

– Completion of syntactic dependencies (integration cost)

• Number

• Length

(Gibson 1998)

• Role in ambiguity resolution

– Minimization of memory costs contribute to choice among alternative resolutions of an ambiguous structure

– Prediction: when difference in memory costs is large, this factor overrides other factors

Plausibility

• Grodner et al. 2002

The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The witness who the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated seemed to be very nervous.The witness thought that the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated his next-door neighbor.

Plausibility

• Grodner et al. 2002

The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.The witness who the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated seemed to be very nervous.The witness thought that the evidence examined by the lawyer implicated his next-door neighbor.

Large syntactic difference overrides plausibility bias

(Grodner, Gibson & Tunstall, 2002)

• Experiment 2: N-N compound vs. RC

– PlausibleThe alley (which) mice run rampant in is damp and dimly lit but relatively clean.

– ImplausibleThe tool (which) plumbers need to have is a good monkey wrench for loosening rusty pipes.

(Grodner, Gibson & Tunstall, 2002)

Plausibility

• Eastwick & Phillips, 2000

The judge remembered that the document…

stating that the [ defendant/evidence (that was) examined by the lawyer was unreliable ]

…had been stolen from the filing cabinet.

Plausibility

• Eastwick & Phillips, 2000

The judge remembered that the document…

had stated that the [ defendant/evidence (that was) examined by the lawyer was unreliable]

…and should be withdrawn from the testimony

• Gibson– Why do length effects exist?

• Retrieval from memory - Phillips et al. ERP study• BUT: McElree on direct access

modularity what’s the big deal? (1983) (not 1983)

higherlevel information

paradigms of information

multiple candidates

crossmodal priminghow

multiple output models

effect of context

multiple accesstabossi

syntactic parsing

Documents

music and modularity - isabelle peretz...(1983), and more...

hierarchical functional modularity in the resting-state ......

modularity with osgi

sd & d modularity

is modularity affordable

modularity using functions

osgi modularity

modularity and scalability

jigsaw modularity

origins of modularity

maximum modularity

operating systems: paging/1 1 paging segmentation helps deal...

design · modularity · safety

enforcing modularity

safety system modularity

et3 modularity project

slice modularity

fedora modularity

the modularity theses - göteborgs universitet · pdf...

reengineering metaphysics: modularity, parthood, and...