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

Download Modularity What’s the Big Deal? (1983) (not 1983)

Post on 13-Jan-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • ModularityWhats the Big Deal?

  • (1983)(not 1983)

  • Properties of Input ModulesDomain Specificity: e.g. color or pitch-sensitive cells, duplex perceptionMandatory Processing of InputSpeedImpenetrability to Conscious Inspection: phoneme-internal details rapidly lostEncapsulation:Shallow Outputs:

  • Impenetrability

  • tT(Posner 1978)Impenetrability

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

  • Encapsulationa 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)

  • EncapsulationNow, 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 subjects appreciation of semantic context or the real world background. (p. 78)

  • Interaction vs. AutonomyLexical Access & Sentence Parsing

  • Boland & Cutler 1996The 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 PrimingThe guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the receptionWINESHIP(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)

  • Cross-Modal PrimingThe guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the receptionWINESHIP(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)

  • Cross-Modal PrimingHow could context prevent a contextually unsupported meaning from being accessed?

  • Cross-Modal PrimingConflicting 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. InteractionIn 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)

  • Autonomy vs. InteractionIn 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)

  • Autonomy vs. InteractionThis 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 RecognitionTwo problemsIncremental generation of candidate structuresSelection among competing alternatives (if more than one available)

    Early focus on generation problem, how to use grammarTemplatesAmbiguity as test of templatesShift 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]

  • 1970s 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 AttachmentLate Closure/Right Association

    not viewed as principles that govern competition among alternativesThe claims about autonomy are therefore (I think) claims about the generation process

  • The Garden Path TheoryQuestion: what information is used, and when, to construct syntactic representations?Focus is on use of different information sources in resolving structurally ambiguous sentencesClaim (e.g. Frazier, 1987):many different types of information are ultimately used (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, probabilistic)but syntactic information is used first/fastest

  • The Garden Path TheoryArgument #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.

  • The Garden Path TheoryArgument #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.

  • The Garden Path TheoryArgument #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(Initial) selection process is governed by non-structural information

    Referential support (Crain, Steedman, Altmann)Semantic plausibilityLexical/structural frequency

    Generation is conditioned by non-structural information

    Syntactic vs. semantic anomalies (Kim et al., 2003) Unsupported interpretations (Duffy et al., 1989; Oakhill & Garnham, 1987)

  • (Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994)

  • By phrase - cost of ambiguityAnimates: 128ms Inanimates: 29ms(Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994)

  • But(Clifton et al., 2003)

  • (1983)(not 1983)

  • Properties of Input ModulesDomain Specificity: e.g. color or pitch-sensitive cells, duplex perceptionMandatory Processing of InputSpeedImpenetrability to Conscious Inspection: phoneme-internal details rapidly lostEncapsulationShallow Outputs:

  • Generation vs. SelectionBoland & 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 DiagnosisERP 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 DiagnosisERP 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

  • P600 to Semantic AnomalyPlausible

    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)P600

  • P600 to Semantic AnomalyUpdate (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}P600N400 (mostly)

  • P600 to Semantic AnomalyEnglish

    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.P600N400(Kuperberg, Sitnikova, Caplan & Holcomb, 2003)

  • Word RecallSupporting 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 AnsweringAnswering 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 SelectionFrequencyReferential Context

  • Frequencysearched

  • Frequencysearchedpast tensepast participle

  • Frequencysearchedpast tensepast participle

  • Frequencysearchedpast tensepast participleaccusedpast tensepast participle

  • Frequencythe thief searched