Variations on incremental interpretation

The strict competence hypothesis has sparked a small dialogue among several researchers attempting to understand its ramifications for human sentence processing and incremental interpretation in particular. In this paper, we review the dialogue, reconstructing the arguments in an attempt to make them more uniform and crisp, and provide our own analyses of certain of the issues that arise. We argue that strict competence, because it requires a synchronous computation mechanism, may actually lead to more complex, rather than simpler, models of incremental interpretation. Asynchronous computation, which is arguably both psychologically more plausible and conceptually more basic, allows for incremental interpretation to fall out naturally, without additional machinery for interpreting partial constituents. We show that this is true regardless of whether the presumed interpretation mechanism is top-down or bottom-up, contra previous conclusions in the literature, and propose a particular implementation of some of these ideas using a novel representation based on tree-adjoining grammars.The research in this paper was supported in part by grant IRI-9157996 from the National Science Foundation to the first author. The authors would like to thank Fernando Pereira, Edward Stabler, and Mark Steedman for discussions on the topic of this paper and for their comments on previous drafts.     

Punished and Nonpunished Responding in A Multiple Schedule in Humans: A Brief Report

Four male subjects responded on a multiple schedule in which responding was maintained by a random interval 20-sec (RI20) schedule of point presentation. Responding was suppressed in alternating components by an added variable ratio 30 (VR30) schedule of point subtractions. Each component was accompanied by distinctive stimulus lights. Subjects were exposed to the multiple schedule from the initial session. Two subjects experienced four 50-min sessions daily (Experiment 1) and the other two subjects participated in one 50-min session daily (Experiment 2). Once responding in the punished components had stabilized, responding in the nonpunished components continued to increase across sessions. Nonpunished responding did not stabilize even after as many as 36 sessions. These results are discussed in the context of previous studies using animals which employed multiple schedules with punished and nonpunished response contingencies.