Role of Expectation and Working Memory Constraints in Hindi Comprehension: An Eye-tracking Corpus Analysis

被引:6
作者
Agrawal, Arpit [1 ]
Agarwal, Sumeet [1 ]
Husain, Samar [1 ]
机构
[1] Indian Inst Technol Delhi, New Delhi, India
来源
JOURNAL OF EYE MOVEMENT RESEARCH | 2017年 / 10卷 / 02期
关键词
sentence comprehension; surprisal; working memory constraints; incremental dependency parser; eye-tracking; Hindi comprehension; CROSS-LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE; LOCALITY; INFORMATION; COMPLEXITY; GERMAN; COSTS; MODEL;
D O I
10.16910/jemr.10.2.4
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
We used the Potsdam-Allahabad Hindi eye-tracking corpus to investigate the role of word-level and sentence-level factors during sentence comprehension in Hindi. Extending previous work that used this eye-tracking data, we investigate the role of surprisal and retrieval cost metrics during sentence processing. While controlling for word-level predictors (word complexity, syllable length, unigram and bigram frequencies) as well as sentence-level predictors such as integration and storage costs, we find a significant effect of surprisal on first-pass reading times (higher surprisal value leads to increase in FPRT). Effect of retrieval cost was only found for a higher degree of parser parallelism. Interestingly, while surprisal has a significant effect on FPRT, storage cost (another prediction-based metric) does not. A significant effect of storage cost shows up only in total fixation time (TFT), thus indicating that these two measures perhaps capture different aspects of prediction. The study replicates previous findings that both prediction-based and memory-based metrics are required to account for processing patterns during sentence comprehension. The results also show that parser model assumptions are critical in order to draw generalizations about the utility of a metric (e.g. surprisal) across various phenomena in a language.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 48 条
[21]  
Gibson E, 2000, IMAGE, LANGUAGE, BRAIN, P95
[22]   Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies [J].
Gibson, E .
COGNITION, 1998, 68 (01) :1-76
[23]  
Gulordava Kristina, 2016, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, V4, P343
[24]  
Hale J, 2001, 2ND MEETING OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS, PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE, P159
[25]   Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not [J].
Huettig, Falk ;
Mani, Nivedita .
LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 31 (01) :19-31
[26]   Strong Expectations Cancel Locality Effects: Evidence from Hindi [J].
Husain, Samar ;
Vasishth, Shravan ;
Srinivasan, Narayanan .
PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (07)
[27]  
Joshi A, 2014, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 52ND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS, VOL 2, P36
[28]   Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English [J].
Kamide, Y ;
Scheepers, C ;
Altmann, GTM .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH, 2003, 32 (01) :37-55
[29]   Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations [J].
Kliegl, R ;
Nuthmann, A ;
Engbert, R .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2006, 135 (01) :12-35
[30]   Locality and parsing complexity [J].
Konieczny, L .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH, 2000, 29 (06) :627-645