Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing

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

Abstract

Various problems with the constraint satisfaction model are discussed. It is argued that the empirical evidence presented in support of the model does not concern predictions of the model that diverge from those of depth-first (one analysis at a time) models. Several methodological problems are also noted. As a theory of sentence processing, the model is inadequate. It fails to account for the assignment of local structure, global structure, structure involving discontinuous dependencies, long-distance dependencies, and adjunct phrases. It makes incorrect predictions about the timing of syntactic analysis. Further, because syntactic structure is available only through activation of syntactic projections stored in the lexical entry of words, the model leaves entirely unexplained the myriad psycholinguistic findings demonstrating independence of lexical and syntactic structure (in Event Related Potential studies, code-switching, pure syntactic priming, etc). Finally, the model is not restrictive or explanatory, providing an account that largely consists ofpost hoc correlations between frequency counts or subjects ratings of sentences and processing time data for the same sentences.

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

  • Adams, B., Clifton, C., & Mitchell, D. (1975).Lexical guidance in sentence processing: Further support for a filtering account. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Bader, M., & Lasser, I. (1994). German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production.Cognition, 31, 163–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., Hagoort, P., & Vonk, W. (1995, March).On-line sentence processing: Parsing preferences revealed by brain responses. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • Carter, J. (1994).Early auditory comprehension: The case for prelexical morphology and phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Clifton, C., Kennison, S., Albrecht, J. E., & Frazier, L. (1995).Resolving the ambiguity of the word Her. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Clifton, C., Speer, S., & Abney, S. (1991). Passing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions.Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.),Natural language parsing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVincenzi, M. (1991).Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVincenzi, M. (1995, March).Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W. (1961). The influence of syntactical structure on learning.American Journal of Psychology, 74, 80–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forster, K., & Olbrei, I. (1973). Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis.Cognition, 2, 319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1987a). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1987b). Sentence process: A tutorial review In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1990). Identifying structure under X0. In A Jongman & A. Lahiri (Eds.),Yearbook of Morphology, 3, 87–109.

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser.Language and Cognitive Processes 4, 93–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (in press)Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch.Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B., & Coolen, R. (1993). Processing discontinuous words: On the interface between lexical and syntactic processing.Cognition 47, 219–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A., Mecklinger, A., Steinhauer, K., & Hahne, A. (1995, March).Processing violations of syntactic structure vs. violations of syntactic preferences: Evidence from ERP studies. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., & MacDonald, M.C. (1995, March).The relative contribution of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • Gibson, E., Schutze, C., & Salomon, A. (1995, March).The relationship between the frequency and the perceived complexity of linguistic structure. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Paper Tucson.

  • Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (1994). Brain responses to lexical ambiguity and parsing. In C. E. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankamer, J. (1989). Morphological processing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),Lexical representation and access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka and N. Nagai (Eds.),Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. (1985). Processing of sentences with intransentential code-switching. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, A. M. Zwicky (Eds.),Natural language parsing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennison, S. (1995)The role of verb specific lexical information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Love, T., & Swinney, D. (1995, March).On the nature of the search in coreferential processing. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution.Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In C. E. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., Woest, A., & Pinker, S. (1993). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. (Occasional Paper 47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. (1980). On the temporal structure of spoken language comprehension.Cognition, 8, 1–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, R., & Osterhout, L. (1994).Modularity in syntax reconsidered: Evidence for rapid use of constraints in sentence processing. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Merlo, P. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of verb continuation frequencies for syntactic processing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 435–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D., Cuetos, F., & Corley, M. (1995, March).The linguistic tuning hypothesis: Further corpus and experimental evidence. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • Nagai, N. (1995). Constraints on topics: from a parsing perspective. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.),Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni, W., & Crain, S. (1990). How to resolve structural ambiguities.Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 20, 414–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obler, L., Robinson, K. Kaufman, R., & Satake, E. (1994, January).Are suffixes read like prefixes? Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston.

  • Osterhout, L. (1994). Event-related brain potentials as tools for comprehending language comprehension. In C. E. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity and lexical ambiguity.Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity. In J. K. O'Regan & A. Levy-Schoen (Eds.),Eye movements: From physiology to cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 779–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., & Kühn, K. (1995)The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German.Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M., Tanenhaus, J., Leiman, J., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations on knowledge based processing.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. (1995, March).The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic clause ambiguities. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • Spivey-Knowlton, M., Trueswell, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Context and syntactic ambiguity resolution.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 47, 276–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re-) consideration of context effects.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance.Psychological Research, 49, 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. R. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations.Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M., & Pickering, M. (1995, March).Evidence against statistical parsing. Poster presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.

  • Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. E. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M., & Garnsey, S. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing. Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Meaning and Language, 33, 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1984). Lexical decisions in sentences: Effects of syntactic structure.Memory & Cognition, 12, 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurif, E. B., Swinney, D., Prather, P., Solomon, J., & Bushell, C. (1993). An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia.Brain and Language, 45, 448–464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts, 01003, Amherst, Massachusetts

    Lyn Frazier

Authors
  1. Lyn Frazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The present paper is an excerpt from “Sentence (Re-)Analysis” presented at the 1994 CUNY Conference. It was supported by NIH Grant HD18708 to Clifton and Frazier and DBS9121375 to Rayner and Frazier. I am very grateful to Chuck Clifton and to an anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frazier, L. Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. J Psycholinguist Res 24, 437–468 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143161

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143161

Keywords

Search

Navigation