Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:08:12.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction, explanation, and the role of generative models in language processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2013

Thomas A. Farmer ,
Meredith Brown  and
Michael K. Tanenhaus
Thomas A. Farmer
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0268. [email protected]@[email protected] Center for Language Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0268
Meredith Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0268. [email protected]@[email protected]
Michael K. Tanenhaus
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0268. [email protected]@[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose, following Clark, that generative models also play a central role in the perception and interpretation of linguistic signals. The data explanation approach provides a rationale for the role of prediction in language processing and unifies a number of phenomena, including multiple-cue integration, adaptation effects, and cortical responses to violations of linguistic expectations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 211 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, J. E., Hudson, C. L. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007) If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33:914–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, M., Dilley, L. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012) Real-time expectations based on context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Miyake, N., Peebles, D. & Cooper, R. P., pp. 1374–79. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Salverda, A. P., Dilley, L. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011) Expectations from preceding prosody influence segmentation in online sentence processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18:1189–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahan, D. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004) Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from immediate effects of verb-based constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30:498–513.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T. A. & Pylkkanen, L. (2010) Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science 21:629–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dilley, L. C. & McAuley, J. D. (2008) Distal prosodic context affects word segmentation and lexical processing. Journal of Memory and Language 59:294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilley, L. C. & Pitt, M. (2010) Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. Psychological Science 21:1664–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H. & Monaghan, P. (2006) Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103:12203–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmer, T. A., Monaghan, P., Misyak, J. B. & Christiansen, M. H. (2011) Phonological typicality influences sentence processing in predictive contexts: A reply to Staub et al. (2009) Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37:1318–25.Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A. & Qian, T. (under review) Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension.Google Scholar
Grodner, D. & Sedivy, J. (2011) The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In: The processing and acquisition of reference, vol. 2327, eds. Gibson, E. & Pearlmutter, N., pp. 239–72. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. & Drager, K. (2010) Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48:865–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinschmidt, D. & Jaeger, T. F. (2011) A Bayesian belief updating model of phonetic recalibration and selective adaptation. Association for Computational Linguistics – Computational Modeling and Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kraljic, T., Samuel, A. G. & Brennan, S. E. (2008) First impressions and last resorts: How listeners adjust to speaker variability. Psychological Science 19:332–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kukona, A., Fang, S., Aicher, K. A., Chen, H. & Magnuson, J. S. (2011) The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition 119:23–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurumada, C., Brown, M. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012) Pragmatic interpretation of contrastive prosody: It looks like adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Miyake, N., Peebles, D. & Cooper, R. P., pp. 647–52. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Aslin, R. N. (2009) Within-category VOT affects recovery from “lexical” garden paths: Evidence against phoneme-level inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language 60:65–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staum Casasanto, L. (2008) Does social information influence sentence processing? In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Love, B. C., McRae, K. & Sloutsky, V. M., pp. 799–804. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K. & Hare, M. (2007) Phonological typicality and sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science 11:93–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J. & MacDonald, M. C. (2009) Experience and sentence comprehension: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58:250–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed