Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 30
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Rezaeian, Mehrdad Sadighi, Firooz Yamini, Mortaza and Bagheri, Mohammad Sadegh 2018. The role of animacy and language proficiency in the comprehension of English restrictive relative clauses by Iranian EFL learners: an emergentist approach. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, Vol. 3, Issue. 1,

    Verhoeven, Elisabeth and Lehmann, Nico 2018. Self-embedding and complexity in oral registers. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 93.

    Temperley, David and Gildea, Daniel 2018. Minimizing Syntactic Dependency Lengths: Typological/Cognitive Universal?. Annual Review of Linguistics, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 67.

    Brennan, Jonathan R. and Pylkkänen, Liina 2017. MEG Evidence for Incremental Sentence Composition in the Anterior Temporal Lobe. Cognitive Science, Vol. 41, Issue. , p. 1515.

    Munaiah, Nuthan Meyers, Benjamin S. Alm, Cecilia O. Meneely, Andrew Murukannaiah, Pradeep K. Prud’hommeaux, Emily Wolff, Josephine and Yu, Yang 2017. Engineering Secure Software and Systems. Vol. 10379, Issue. , p. 70.

    Hale, John 2016. Information-theoretical Complexity Metrics. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 10, Issue. 9, p. 397.

    Laleko, Oksana and Polinsky, Maria 2016. Between syntax and discourse. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, Vol. 6, Issue. 4, p. 396.

    Frank, Stefan L. Trompenaars, Thijs and Vasishth, Shravan 2016. Cross-Linguistic Differences in Processing Double-Embedded Relative Clauses: Working-Memory Constraints or Language Statistics?. Cognitive Science, Vol. 40, Issue. 3, p. 554.

    Tejada, Ma Ángeles Zarco Gallardo, Carmen Noya Ferradá, Ma Carmen Merino and López, Ma Isabel Calderón 2015. Building a Corpus of 2L English for Automatic Assessment: The CLEC Corpus. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 198, Issue. , p. 515.

    Häussler, Jana and Bader, Markus 2015. An interference account of the missing-VP effect. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, Issue. ,

    Hawkins, John A. 2015. The Handbook of Language Emergence. p. 215.

    Norcliffe, Elisabeth Harris, Alice C. and Jaeger, T. Florian 2015. Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Vol. 30, Issue. 9, p. 1009.

    Dell’Orletta, Felice Montemagni, Simonetta and Venturi, Giulia 2014. Assessing document and sentence readability in less resourced languages and across textual genres. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 165, Issue. 2, p. 163.

    Carroll, Rebecca and Ruigendijk, Esther 2013. The Effects of Syntactic Complexity on Processing Sentences in Noise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 42, Issue. 2, p. 139.

    Phillips, Colin 2013. Some arguments and nonarguments for reductionist accounts of syntactic phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 28, Issue. 1-2, p. 156.

    Solorio, Thamar 2013. Survey on Emerging Research on the Use of Natural Language Processing in Clinical Language Assessment of Children. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 7, Issue. 12, p. 633.

    Schütze, Carson T. 2011. Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, Vol. 2, Issue. 2, p. 206.

    Sprouse, Jon 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 43, Issue. 1, p. 155.

    Jaeger, T. Florian and Tily, Harry 2011. On language ‘utility’: processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, Vol. 2, Issue. 3, p. 323.

    Gildea, Daniel and Temperley, David 2010. Do Grammars Minimize Dependency Length?. Cognitive Science, Vol. 34, Issue. 2, p. 286.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1985
  • Online publication date: January 2010

4 - Syntactic complexity

Summary

The ostensive goal of this paper is to construct a general complexity metric for the processing of natural language sentences, focusing on syntactic determinants of complexity in sentence comprehension. The ultimate goal, however, is to determine how the grammars of natural languages respond to different types of syntactic processing complexity.

A complexity metric that accurately predicts the relative complexity of processing different syntactic structures is not, in itself, of much theoretical interest. There does not seem to be any compelling reason for linguistic theory or psycholinguistic theory to incorporate such a metric. Rather, ultimately the correct complexity metric should follow directly as a theorem or consequence of an adequate theory of sentence comprehension.

Different theories of sentence comprehension typically lead to distinct predictions concerning the relative perceptual difficulty of sentences. Hence, one reason for developing a complexity metric is simply to help pinpoint inadequacies of current theories of sentence comprehension and to aid in the evaluation and refinement of those theories. An explicit complexity metric should also help to reveal the relation between the human sentence processor and the grammars of natural languages. In particular, developing a well-motivated complexity metric is a crucial prerequisite for evaluating the hypothesis that the grammars of natural languages are shaped in some respect by the properties of the human sentence processor since the most common form of this hypothesis claims that grammars tend to avoid generating sentences that are extremely difficult to process.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Natural Language Parsing
  • Online ISBN: 9780511597855
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×