Large-scale benchmark yields no evidence that language model surprisal explains syntactic disambiguation difficulty
Authors:
- Kuan-Jung HuangKHKuan-Jung Huang
- Suhas ArehalliSASuhas Arehalli
- Mari KugemotoMKMari Kugemoto
- Christian MuxicaCMChristian Muxica
- Grusha PrasadGPGrusha Prasad
- Brian DillonBDBrian Dillon
- Tal LinzenTLTal Linzen
Top Cited Papers
- 28 February 2024
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Memory and Language
- Vol. 137
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
Funding Information
- National Science Foundation
This publication has 61 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Natural Stories corpus: a reading-time corpus of English texts containing rare syntactic constructionsLanguage Resources and Evaluation, 2020
- Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye MovementsJournal of Memory and Language, 2002
- Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path LingerCognitive Psychology, 2001
- Agreement Processes in Sentence ComprehensionJournal of Memory and Language, 1999
- Structural Change and Reanalysis Difficulty in Language ComprehensionJournal of Memory and Language, 1999
- Adjunct Attachment Is Not a Form of Lexical Ambiguity ResolutionJournal of Memory and Language, 1998
- The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous SentencesJournal of Memory and Language, 1997
- Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memoryJournal of Memory and Language, 1991
- Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structureMachine Learning, 1991
- Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentencesCognitive Psychology, 1982