In:Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 9–20
Chapter 1Bridging theoretical and experimental linguistic research
Bobby Ruijgrok | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics | Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition
Published online: 12 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.01rui
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.01rui
Abstract
At present, the alignment of linguistic theories and processing models is in its infancy. While scholars in both research groups try to unravel the nature of human language, it appears to be problematic to bring the two enterprises together. Relevant questions include whether the groups – each employing different levels of analysis – ultimately describe different cognitive systems and to what extent the ways in which data are collected (i.e. offline versus online) address the same hypotheses. In this paper I will argue in favour of a single cognitive system that maps linear strings (sounds or symbols) to complex conceptual representations and vice versa, comparable to a “One-System Architecture” as recently proposed by Lewis & Phillips (2015). In the context of ellipsis research, I will show that we should understand the human language system in terms of three levels of description. Further, I will argue for computational linguistics to play a mediating role in bridging theoretical and psycholinguistic methods of enquiry.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.What is at stake?
- 3.Methods of measurement
- 3.1Offline versus online data collection
- 3.2Online data in ellipsis research
- 4.Towards a unified research program
- 4.1Three levels of analysis
- 4.2Computational (psycho)linguistics
- 5.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Note References
References (16)
Arregui, Ana, Charles Clifton Jr., Lyn Frazier & Keir Moulton. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55(2). 232–246.
Baggio, Giosue, Michiel van Lambalgen & Peter Hagoort. 2012. Language, Linguistics and Cognition. In Ruth M. Kempson, Tim Fernando & Nicholas Asher (eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics, 325–355. North Holland.
Cremers, Crit & Maarten Hijzelendoorn. 2014. Meaningful grammar is binary, local, anti-symmetric, recursive and incomplete. In Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly & Ellen van Zanten (eds.), Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics, 60–70.
Embick, David & David Poeppel. 2015. Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language: correlational, integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(4). 357–366. .
Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton, Jr. 2001. Parsing Coordinates and Ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax 4(1). 1–22. .
Hijzelendoorn, Maarten & Crit Cremers. 2009. An object-oriented and fast lexicon for semantic generation. Computation and Language abs/0905.3318.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.
Lewis, Richard L. & Shravan Vasishth. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29(3). 375–419. .
Lewis, Shevaun & Colin Phillips. 2015. Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44(1). 27–46. .
Martin, Andrea E. & Brian McElree. 2008. A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language 58(3). 879–906. .
Poeppel, David & David Embick. 2005. Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Anne Cutler (ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones, 103–120. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
