Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations

Abstract

Swets et al. (2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216) presented evidence that the so-called ambiguity advantage [Traxler et al. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592], which has been explained in terms of the Unrestricted Race Model, can equally well be explained by assuming underspecification in ambiguous conditions driven by task-demands. Specifically, if comprehension questions require that ambiguities be resolved, the parser tends to make an attachment: when questions are about superficial aspects of the target sentence, readers tend to pursue an underspecification strategy. It is reasonable to assume that individual differences in strategy will play a significant role in the application of such strategies, so that studying average behaviour may not be informative. In order to study the predictions of the good-enough processing theory, we implemented two versions of underspecification: the partial specification model (PSM), which is an implementation of the Swets et al. proposal, and a more parsimonious version, the non-specification model (NSM). We evaluate the relative fit of these two kinds of underspecification to Swets et al.’s data; as a baseline, we also fitted three models that assume no underspecification. We find that a model without underspecification provides a somewhat better fit than both underspecification models, while the NSM model provides a better fit than the PSM. We interpret the results as lack of unambiguous evidence in favour of underspecification; however, given that there is considerable existing evidence for good-enough processing in the literature, it is reasonable to assume that some underspecification might occur. Under this assumption, the results can be interpreted as tentative evidence for NSM over PSM. More generally, our work provides a method for choosing between models of real-time processes in sentence comprehension that make qualitative predictions about the relationship between several dependent variables. We believe that sentence processing research will greatly benefit from a wider use of such methods.

Semantic Interference and Facilitation: Understanding the Integration of Spatial Distance and Conceptual Similarity During Sentence Reading

“…We predicted that strongly activated visually derived representations should interfere with, and weakly active visually derived representations should facilitate, the processing of related semantic representations. The idea that competition can slow processing (in ambiguity resolution) receives support from the psycholinguistic literature on constraint-based models (e.g., Traxler et al, 1998 ; Vosse and Kempen, 2009 , see Arbib and Caplan, 1979 ; McClelland and Rumelhart, 1981 for related computational predecessors).…”

“…This measure includes not only fixations on the critical region but also regressive fixations on previous regions of the sentence. Finally, total reading time is the sum of all fixations in a given region (see, e.g., Liversedge et al, 1998 ; Rayner, 1998 ; Traxler et al, 1998 ; Rayner and Liversedge, 2004 ). All reading measures were calculated using the Data Viewer software (SR Research).…”

Computational Models of Retrieval Processes in Sentence Processing

“…In closing, although it is clear that retrieval processes are not the only factor that determine processing difficulty in sentence comprehension [71,94,95,96,97,98,99,100], there Figure 5 . Dillon Expt 1: Ungrammatical agreement by participants.…”

When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing

“…In an attempt to specify underspecification, Logačev and Vasishth's (2016) paper, entitled "Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations", presents the results of a modelling experiment comparing partial specification and no-specification models of the parsing of globally ambiguous relative-clause attachments. The partial specification model was proposed by Swets, Desmet, Clifton, and Ferreira (2008).…”