Publications

Abstract

Certain categories of language learners need feedback on the grammatical structure of sentences they wish to produce. In contrast with the usual NLP approach to this problem—parsing student-generated texts—we propose a generation-based approach aiming at preventing errors (“scaffolding”). In our ICALL system, students construct sentences by composing syntactic trees out of lexically anchored “treelets” via a graphical drag&drop user interface. A natural-language generator computes all possible grammatically well-formed sentences entailed by the student-composed tree, and intervenes immediately when the latter tree does not belong to the set of well-formed alternatives. Feedback is based on comparisons between the student-composed tree and the well-formed set. Frequently occurring errors are handled in terms of “malrules.” The system (implemented in JAVA and C++) currently focuses constituent order in German as L2.

Abstract

We present an overview of several corpus studies we carried out into the frequencies of argument NP orderings in the midfield of subordinate and main clauses of German. Comparing the corpus frequencies with grammaticality ratings published by Keller’s (2000), we observe a “grammaticality–frequency gap”: Quite a few argument orderings with zero corpus frequency are nevertheless assigned medium–range grammaticality ratings. We propose an explanation in terms of a two-factor theory. First, we hypothesize that the grammatical induction component needs a sufficient number of exposures to a syntactic pattern to incorporate it into its repertoire of more or less stable rules of grammar. Moderately to highly frequent argument NP orderings are likely have attained this status, but not their zero-frequency counterparts. This is why the latter argument sequences cannot be produced by the grammatical encoder and are absent from the corpora. Secondly, we assumed that an extraneous (nonlinguistic) judgment process biases the ratings of moderately grammatical linear order patterns: Confronted with such structures, the informants produce their own “ideal delivery” variant of the to-be-rated target sentence and evaluate the similarity between the two versions. A high similarity score yielded by this judgment then exerts a positive bias on the grammaticality rating—a score that should not be mistaken for an authentic grammaticality rating. We conclude that, at least in the linearization domain studied here, the goal of gaining a clear view of the internal grammar of language users is best served by a combined strategy in which grammar rules are founded on structures that elicit moderate to high grammaticality ratings and attain at least moderate usage frequencies.

Abstract

Experimental sentence comprehension studies have shown that superficially similar German clauses with verb-final word order elicit very different garden-path and ERP effects. We show that a computer implementation of the Unification Space parser (Vosse & Kempen, 2000) in the form of a localist-connectionist network can model the observed differences, at least qualitatively. The model embodies a parallel dynamic parser that, in contrast with existing models, does not distinguish between consecutive first-pass and reanalysis stages, and does not use semantic or thematic roles. It does use structural frequency data and animacy information.

Abstract

The psychological process of translating semantic into syntactic structures has dynamic properties such as the following. (1) The speaker is able to start pronouncing an utterance before having worked out the semantic content he wishes to express. Selection of semantic content and construction of syntactic form proceed partially in parallel. (2) The human sentence generator takes as input not only a specification of semantic content but also some indication of desired syntactic shape. Such indications, if present, do not complicate the generation process but make it easier. (3) Certain regularities of speech errors suggest a two-stage generation process. Stage I constructs the “syntactic skeleton” of an utterance; stage II provides the skeleton with morpho- honological information. An outline is given of the type of grammar which is used by a sentence generation system embodying these characteristics. The system is being implemented on a computer.

Abstract

Rede, uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van lector in de taalpsychologie aan de Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen op Vrijdag 10 juni 1977

Abstract

The psychological process of producing sentences includes conceptualization (selecting to-beexpressed conceptual content) and formulation (translating conceptual content into syntactic structures of a language). There is ample evidence, both intuitive and experimental, that the conceptualizing and formulating processes often proceed concurrently, not strictly serially. James Lindsley (Cognitive Psych.,1975, 7, 1-19; J.Psycholinguistic Res., 1976, 5, 331-354) has developed a concurrent model which proved succesful in an experimental situation where simple English Subject-Verb (SV) sentences such as “The boy is greeting”,”The girl is kicking” were produced as descriptions of pictures which showed actor and action. The measurements were reaction times defined as the interval between the moment a picture appeared on a screen and the onset of the vocal utterance by the speaker. Lindsley could show, among other things, that the formulation process for an SV sentence doesn’t start immediately after the actor of a picture (that is, the conceptual content underlying the surface Subject phrase) has been identified, but is somewhat delayed. The delay was needed, according to Lindsley, in order to prevent dysfluencies (hesitations) between surface Subject and verb. We replicated Lindsley’s data for Dutch. However, his model proved inadequate when we added Dutch Verb-Subject (VS) constructions which are obligatory in certain syntactic contexts but synonymous with their SV counterparts. A sentence production theory which is being developed by the first author is able to provide an accurate account of the data. The abovementioned delay is attributed to certain precautions the sentence generator has to take in case of SV but not of VS sentences. These precautions are related to the goal of attaining syntactic coherence of the utterance as a whole, not to the prevention of dysfluencies.