Article published in:
New Approaches to English Linguistics: Building bridges
Edited by Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja and Sarah Chevalier
[Studies in Language Companion Series 177] 2016
► pp. 281–320

Statistical sequence and parsing models for descriptive linguistics and psycholinguistics

| University of Zurich | University of Konstanz
| University of Stockholm
This study shows that using computational linguistic models is beneficial for descriptive linguistics and psycholinguistics. It applies two models to various English genres and learner language: 1) surprisal and 2) a syntactic parser, allowing us to investigate the role of ambiguity and the interplay between idiom and syntax principles. We find that surprisal and ambiguity are higher for learner language, while parser scores and model fit are lower. In addition, the random application of alternations leads to more ambiguous sentences. Failures to generate optimal orderings in the sense of relevance theory, such as nonnative-like utterances by language learners exhibit, increase processing load, both for human and automatic processors. As human and automatic parsing difficulties correlate, we suggest syntactic parsers as psycholinguistic processing models.
Keywords: language processing, statistical models, idiom and syntax principle, ambiguity, syntactic parsing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and motivation: Language models
    • 2.1A case for statistical language models in linguistics
      • 2.1.1Significance tests are not enough
        • 2.1.1.1Assumption of random distribution
        • 2.1.1.2Assumption of independence from other factors
        • 2.1.1.3Assumption of free choice
      • 2.1.2The envelope of variation
      • 2.1.3Binary local decisions
    • 2.2Models for natural language processing
      • 2.2.1N-gram models and the idiom principle
      • 2.2.2Syntactic models: Distributed interdependent decisions
        • 2.2.2.1Ambiguity
        • 2.2.2.2The idiom and syntax principle in a tug-of-war
        • 2.2.2.3Cognitive plausibility
        • 2.2.2.4Model parameters
        • 2.2.2.5Local and Global Models in Interaction
    • 2.3L1 and L2 data
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Surprisal and UID
    • 3.3High levels of residuals and low model fit of parsers as indicator
  • 4.Results: Two language processing models
    • 4.1Surprisal at the level of word sequences
    • 4.2Syntactic parser as a processing model
      • 4.2.1Parser accuracy
      • 4.2.2Parser model fit
  • 5.Ambiguity
    • 5.1Garden-path sentences
    • 5.2Avoidance of ambiguity
    • 5.3Forcing rare constituent order and alternative lexis
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.177.11sch
References
Aggarval, Charu C.
2013 Outlier Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Crossref
Altenberg, Bengt & Tapper, Marie
1998 The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learner’s written English. In Learner English on Computer [Studies in Language and Linguistics], Sylviane Granger (ed.), 80–93. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne
2010 Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1930 Von deutscher Wortstellung (On German word order). Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde, Zeitschrift für deutschen Unterricht (44): 81–89.Google Scholar
Borensztajn, Gideon, Zuidema, Willem & Bod, Rens
2009 Children’s grammars grow more abstract with age-evidence from an automatic procedure for identifying the productive units of language. Topics in Cognitive Science 1(1): 175–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens, Scha, Remko & Sima’an, Khalil
(eds) 2003 Data-Oriented Parsing [Center for the Study of Language and Information, Studies in Computational Linguistics (CSLI-SCL)]. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, Harald
2007 Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Gosse Boume, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana
2009 The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, Linda Uyechi & Lian Hee Wee (eds), 161–184. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Sabine
2002 Memory-Based Grammatical Relation Finding. PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, John, Minnen, Guido & Briscoe, Edward
2003 Parser evaluation: using a grammatical relation annotation scheme. In Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, Anne Abeillé (ed.), 299–316. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Michael
1999 Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Conklin, Kathy & Schmitt, Norbert
2012 The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 45–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Church, Kenneth
2000 Empirical estimates of adaptation: The chance of two Noriegas is closer to p/2 than to p2 . Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Computational Linguistics COLING, Vol. 1, 180–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demberg, Vera, Keller, Frank & Alexander Koller
2013 Parsing with psycholinguistically motivated tree-adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics 39(4): 1025–1066. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C.
2012 Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal Teddy Bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 17–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evert, Stefan
2006 How random is a corpus? The library metaphor. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54(2): 177–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Federico, Marcello & Cettolo, Mauro
2007 Efficient handling of N-gram language models for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Chris Callison-Burch, Philipp Koehn, Christof Monz, & Cameron Shaw Fordyce (eds), 88–95. Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Gill
1993 A corpus-driven approach to grammar – principles, methods and examples. In Text and Technology, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 137–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane
2009 Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Anthony Paul Cowie (ed.), 185–204. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Green, Matthew J.
2014 An eye-tracking evaluation of some parser complexity metrics. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Predicting and Improving Text Readability for Target Reader Populations (PITR), Sandra Williams, Advaith Siddharthan & Anni Nenkova (eds), 38–46. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2006 Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2): 109–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Methodological skills in corpus linguistics: A polemic and some pointers towards quantitative methods. In Corpus Linguistics in Language Teaching, Tony Harris & María Moreno Jaén (eds), 121–146. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012 Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics, and cognitive/psycholinguistics: Towards more and more fruitful exchanges. In Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description, Joybrato Mukherjee & Magnus Huber (eds), 41–63. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
In press. Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds) Cambridge CUP Crossref
Hawkins, John A.
1994 A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael
2005 Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. New York NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Schneider, Gerold & Seoane, Elena
2016 The use of the be-passive in academic Englishes: Local vs. global usage in an international language. Corpora 11(1): 31–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill
2000 A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, Emi, Uchimoto, Kiyotaka & Isahara, Hitoshi
2005 Error annotation for corpus of Japanese learner English. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora, Kyonghee Paik, Francis Bond & Stephan Oepen (eds), 71–80. Jeju: Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Shin
2009 Vocabulary in interlanguage: A study on corpus of English essays written by Asian university students (CEEAUS). In Phraseology, Corpus Linguistics and Lexicography: Papers from Phraseology 2009 in Japan, Katsumasa Yagi & Takaaki Kanzaki (eds), 87–100. Nishinomiya: Kwansei Gakuin University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Tim Florian
2010 Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1): 23–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.
1993 The genitive versus the of-construction in newspaper language. In The Noun Phrase in English: Its Structure and Variability, Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), 121–136. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank
2003 A probabilistic parser as a model of global processing difficulty. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Richard Alterman & David Kirsh (eds), 646–651. Boston MA: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
2010 Cognitively plausible models of human language processing. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers, Min-Yen Kang (ed.), 60–67. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf
2003 Genitive and of-construction in modern written English: Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 169–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Introduction to English Syntax. Textbooks in English Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp & Hoang, Hieu
2007 Factored translation models. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, Min-Yen Kang (ed.), 868–876. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1969 Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45(4): 715–762. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009 Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Hans Martin & Schneider, Gerold
2012 Syntactic variation and lexical preference in the dative-shift alternation. In Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Papers from the 31st International conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 31) Giessen, Germany, Joybrato Mukherjee & Magnus Huber (eds), 65–75. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth C.
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Jaeger, T. Florian
2007 Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 19, Bernhard Schlökopf, John Platt & Thomas Hoffman (eds), 849–856. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Mitch, Santorini, Beatrice & Marcinkiewicz, Mary Ann
1993 Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19: 313–330.Google Scholar
Mariño, José, Banches, Rafael E., Crego, Josep M., de Gispert, Adrià Lambert, Patrik, Fonollosa, José A. R. & Costa-jussà, Marta R.
2006 N-gram-based machine translation. Computational Linguistics 32(4): 527–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor
1998 Collocations and lexical functions. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Anthon Paul Cowie (ed.), 23–53. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Meseguer, Enrique, Carreiras, Manuel & Clifton, Charles
2002 Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition 30(4): 551–561. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Millar, Neil
2011 The processing of malformed learner collocations. Applied Linguistics 32(2): 129–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato
2005 English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newell, Allen
1990 Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ng, Hwee Tou, Wu, Siew Mei, Briscoe, Ted, Hadiwinoto, Christian, Susanto, Raymond Hendy & Bryant, Christopher
(eds) 2014 Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning: Shared Task. http://​acl2014​.org​/acl2014​/W14–17/ (12 February 2016). Crossref
Pawley, Andrew & Syder, Frances Hodgetts
1983 Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In Language and Communication, Jack. C. Richards & Richard. W. Schmidt (eds), 191–226. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta
(eds) 2003 Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English [Topics in English Linguistics 43]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette
2002 Genitive Variation in English. Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie & Schneider, Gerold
2013 Of-genitive versus s-genitive: A corpus-based analysis of possessive constructions in 20th-century English. In New Methods in Historical Corpora [Corpus Linguistics and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Language 3], Paul Bennet, Martin Durrell, Silke Scheible & Richard J. Whitt (eds), 163–180. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David
1988 Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. 4: Language: The Socio-Cultural Context, Frederik J. Newmeyer (ed.), 140–161. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Gerold, Rinaldi, Fabio, Kaljurand, Kaarel & Hess, Michael
2005 Closing the gap: Cognitively adequate, fast broad-coverage grammatical role parsing. In ICEIS Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Cognitive Science (NLUCS 2005). Miami FL.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold
2008 Hybrid Long-distance Functional Dependency Parsing. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
2012 Using semantic resources to improve a syntactic dependency parser. In SEM-II workshop at LREC 2012, Viktor Pekar, Verginica Barbu Mititelu & Octavian Popescu (eds), 67–76. Istanbul.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold & Hundt, Marianne
2012 “Off with their heads”: Profiling TAM in ICE corpora. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-wide [Varieties of English Around the World 43], Marianne Hundt & Ulrike Gut (eds), 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark & MacDonald, Maryellen
1999 A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23(4): 569–588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sennrich, Rico
2013 Domain Adaptation for Translation Models in Statistical Machine Translation. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena
2009 Syntactic complexity, discourse status and animacy as determinants of grammatical variation in modern English. English Language and Linguistics 13(3): 365–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008 The phrase, the whole phrase and nothing but the phrase. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Sylviane Granger & Fanny Meunier (eds), 407–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna & Martinez, Ron
2014 The Idiom Principle revisited. Applied Linguistics 36(5): 549–569.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002 Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17(1): 3–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2006 Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English: A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2000 The item based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 156–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas
1997 Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9: 81–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer
2003 Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English [Topics in English Linguistics 43], Guenter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 119–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002 Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar