P1246211300TWovs

1

• Incremental parsing and ambiguous sentences
• each incoming materials are attached immediately
• a single or multiple analyses are pursed
• - given the uncertainty, how do we decide which
  structure to choose?

2
Global ambiguity
two possible attachment sites ? which one do I
like better?
3
Global ambiguity
Late closure strategy ? attach the incoming
materials under the node currently being built
4
Global ambiguity
The attachment to the higher VP is not preferred
5
Global ambiguity
So far so good!
S
NP
VP
Det
N
V
NP
N
Det
The cop
saw
the spy
6
Global ambiguity
Two possible attachment sites - how do I decide?
7
Global ambiguity
VP attachment ? Minimal attachment strategy
S
NP
VP
Det
N
V
NP
N
Det
The cop
saw
the spy
8
Global ambiguity
NP attachment ? more syntactic nodes
S
NP
VP
NP
V
Det
N
NP
PP
N
Det
NP
P
The cop
saw
the spy
with the binoculars
9
Temporary ambiguity
The
10
Temporary ambiguity
The
performer
11
Temporary ambiguity
The
performer
sent
12
Temporary ambiguity
The
performer
sent
the
13
Temporary ambiguity
The
performer
sent
the
flowers
14
Temporary ambiguity
The
performer
sent
the
was pleased
flowers
15
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
All right, I have a verb. Thats easy. Lets
attach that under the main VP. Although
performer typically is sent something by
others, I dont care about meaning for now.
Besides, it is simpler to have sent as a main
verb anyway.
S
NP
Det
N
The performer
sent
16
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
Good. Then, I have to wait for some nouns after
the verb. Come on, show me an NP now.
S
VP
NP
Det
N
V
The performer
sent
17
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
A-ha. You know, Im good. So now what,
maybe the recipient of the flowers? That would
be a PP (yeah, to NP).
S
VP
NP
Det
N
NP
V
Det
N
The performer
the flowers
sent
18
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
S
VP
NP
Det
N
NP
V
Det
N
The performer
the flowers
sent
19
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
Dont panic. Lets go back. Maybe I did
something wrong right here.
S
NP
Det
N
The performer
sent
20
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
Because I remember that there is another
possibility. Suppose I have this structure.
Then,
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
Comp
S
NP
VP
VP
NP
Det
N
The performer
who
e
was
the flowers
sent
21
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
I know that who was can be dropped without
causing any meaning difference. Lets see what
happens.
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
Comp
S
NP
VP
VP
NP
Det
N
The performer
the flowers
sent
22
Garden-path models Minimal Attachment
Now, it looks good. But wait, who would have
thought of this structure in the first place? I
wouldnt!
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
VP
NP
Det
N
The performer
the flowers
was pleased
sent
23
Constraint-based model
All right, I have a verb. But I know that sent
is ambiguous and besides, performer typically
is sent something but not send something to
others, so maybe sent is a past participle but
not the main verb.
24
Constraint-based model
If sent is a past participle, then, originally
it must have this structure.
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
Comp
S
NP
VP
VP
NP
Det
N
The performer
who
e
was
the flowers
sent
25
Constraint-based model
And I know that who was can be dropped without
causing any meaning difference. Lets see what
happens.
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
Comp
S
NP
VP
VP
NP
Det
N
The performer
the flowers
sent
26
Constraint-based model
Now, it looks good.
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
VP
NP
Det
N
The performer
the flowers
was pleased
sent
27
Unambiguous sentence
The
teacher
given
the
was pleased
flowers
28
Unambiguous sentence
From the outset, it is clear that this is the
only possible structure.
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
Comp
S
NP
VP
VP
NP
Det
N
The teacher
who
e
was
the flowers
given
29
Unambiguous sentence
Again, who was can be dropped without causing any
meaning difference.
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
Comp
S
NP
VP
VP
NP
Det
N
The teacheri
the flowers
given
30
Unambiguous sentence
The difference is that given is not ambiguous.
S
NP
VP
NP
RC
Det
N
VP
NP
Det
N
The teacher
the flowers
was pleased
given