Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal Commitment theory goes east

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper introduces the Minimal Commitment theory. This theory is a subspecies of deterministic parsers. The theory builds representations where immediate dominance and precedence relations are unspecified. Justification that this approach is psycholinguistically justified comes from its ability to provide a cross-linguistically valid theory of Garden path sentences in English and Japanese.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abney, S. (1987).The English NP in its sentential aspect. Unpublished MIT doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D., & Weinberg, A. (1987). Two types of locality.Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 537–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, E., & Berwick, R. C. (1985). Parsing with assertion sets and information monotonicity.Proceedings of IJCAI, 9, 769–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berwick, R. C., & Weinberg, A. (1985). Deterministic parsing: A modern view.NELS, 15, 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. (1976). On the form and functioning of transformations.Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 3–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding.Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981).Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1986).Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C., Speer, S., & Abney, S. (1991).Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How grammars can help parsers. In D. R. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, and A. Zwicky (Eds.),Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge, England: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorr, B. (1987).Unitran: A principle based approach to machine translation (Al Lab Memo 100). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, S. (1991).Computational properties of principle based grammatical theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Frank, R. (1992).Syntactic locality and tree adjoining grammar: Grammatical, acquisition, and processing perspectives (IRCS Tech. Report No. 92-47). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukui, N. (1986).A theory of category projections and its applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Gorrell, P. (1992).The parser as tree builder. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland at College Park.

  • Inoue, A. (1991).A comparative study of parsing in English and Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Jackendoff, R. (1977).X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees.Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Cambridge, MA (pp. 129–136).

  • Mazuka, R., & Itoh, C. (1992).Processing of Japanese garden path, center embedded and left embedded sentences. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tokyo.

  • Mazuka, R., & Lust, B. (1988). Why is Japanese not difficult to process? A proposal to integrate parameter setting in UG and parsing.NELS, 18, 333–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B. (1991). Head Position and parsing ambiguity.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, M. (1985).Some asymetries in Japanese and their theoretical consequences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Speas, M. (1990).Phrase structure in natural language. Dordecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T. (1981).Origins of phrase structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Weinberg, A. (1987).Locality principles in syntax and in parsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Weinberg, A. (1991).A parsing theory for the nineties: Minimal Commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland at College Park.

  • Weinberg, A. (submitted). Deterministic parsing without lookahead: Minimal commitment. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Linguistics Department/Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

    Amy Weinberg

Authors
  1. Amy Weinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This work was supported by BNS902154-02 from the NSF.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weinberg, A. Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal Commitment theory goes east. J Psycholinguist Res 22, 339–364 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068016

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068016

Keywords

Search

Navigation