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.     

Child protection dilemmas in a 'not-existing' pattern of abuse

Three cases from a larger review of child abuse inquiry reports are discussed. The abuse the children suffered is termed 'not-existing' because they had been shut away until they perished. Interaction between the children's caretakers and the child protection professionals is examined within a revised framework of the double-bind.     

A Power Test of Conceptual Complexity: Textual Correlates1

Conceptual complexity is a personality characteristic that involves the individual's ability to differentiate and integrate aspects of information. It is usu ally measured with the Paragraph Completion Test (PCT), which requires the completion of six paragraphs, in response to standard stems, often with a time limit of 100-120 sec each. In order to eliminate time pressure, which may reduce complexity, the current study evaluated a revised format that used only two stems but allowed 8 minutes per response. As expected, this procedure resulted in higher scores and produced enough written output to allow analysis of particular test components. Complexity scores from 277 university students were related to total number of words written, sentence length, and number of words with more than three syllables, but not to standard formulae designed to measure readability, such as the Flesch, SMOG and FOG indices. The modest size of the obtained correlations suggests that the scoring of conceptual complexity on the basis of semantic content cannot be replaced by indices based on linguistic and textual components.     

Embeddability,syntax, and semantics in accounts of scientific theories

Recently several philosophers of science have proposed what has come to be known as the semantic account of scientific theories. It is presented as an improvement on the positivist account, which is now called the syntactic account of scientific theories. Bas van Fraassen claims that the syntactic account does not give a satisfactory definition of empirical adequacy and empirical equivalence. He contends that his own semantic account does define these notations acceptably, through the concept of embeddability, a concept which he claims cannot be defined syntactically. Here, I define a syntactic relation which corresponds to the semantic relation of embeddability. I suggest that the critical differences between the positivist account and van Fraassen's account have nothing to do with the distinction between semantics and syntax.