Aligning Grammatical Theories and Language Processing Models-Summarization

Hello
I am @hespoir.

I am going to do a summary in order to help myself understand this hard concept.....

Do grammatical theories and language processing models describe separate cognitive systems—independent functions of the human mind? Or are they accounts of different aspects of the same system? This question is the main focus of this paper. We argue that most evidence is consistent with the view that grammatical theories and language processing models describe a single cognitive system

Grammatical theories, language processing theories
 1 cognitive system: Philips and Lewis

Two system hypothesis
-> grammar 고정 language system: process
-> human language ability: combine different concepts
Lexical items+grammar
-> different purposes :grammar more compelx 다르게 생각 가능
-> > different representations
-> representations employed by each system to be particularly suited to their purpose.
-> The most important challenge for the two-system hypothesis is to explain how the language processing system and the grammar system interact. Some interaction between the two systems is necessary to explain why the outputs of comprehension and production look so similar to the representations licensed by the grammar, and how offline judgments come to reflect the grammar, despite being mediated by comprehension or production mechanisms.

The one system hypothesis
Under the one-system hypothesis, there is only one cognitive system for language, and it is suitable for real-time comprehension and production. Under this view, the grammar is an abstract description of the representations that this cognitive system builds.
( language evolution, syntax 배운 사람들이 그렇게 생각)
The one-system hypothesis certainly allows for divergence between online and offline responses

-empirical arguments: alignment and misalignment
Alignment: encourage 1 cognitive system

The closer the alignment between the representations tracked by online and offline measures, the more feasible it is to maintain a one-system view. Although close alignment is also compatible with a two-system view, it cannot be explained or predicted without an explicit theory of how the two systems interact.

 online responses exhibit fine-grained sensitivity to many of the constraints identified by grammarians using offline measures. They do not lend support to the notion of a comprehension system that deploys rough-and-ready mechanisms that sacrifice grammatical detail for efficiency, and as such they are encouraging for a one-system view.
 (the parser generally avoids constructing dependencies that would be unacceptable in offline judgments ex. Himself, she-> have tested whether the parser considers only antecedents that would be acceptable in offline judgments,
(4), does the parser ever consider Jonathan as a potential antecedent for himself?
(4) The surgeon who treated Jonathan had pricked himself with a used syringe needle.
Most studies suggest that grammatically illicit antecedents are not considered, based on evidence from cross-modal priming (Nicol and Swinney 1989), eye-tracking during reading (Dillon et al. 2013; Sturt 2003), self-paced reading (Badecker and Straub 2002, experiments 4–5; Clifton et al. 1999), visual world eye-tracking (Clackson et al. 2011), and ERPs (Xiang et al. 2009). Thus, online and offline responses both indicate the same set of candidate antecedents.
 Parser also avoids unacceptable antecedents)
Online: grammatical anomalies

Misalignment: 4 categories
Misalignments may be consistent with a one-system view, but only if the explanation for those mismatches is based on general properties of the language processing system.

-garden path : cases provide potential evidence for a two-system view: if the initial percept of acceptability and the subsequent judgment of incoherence are the product of separate systems, then the mismatch is unsurprising
In syntactic and semantic garden paths, misalignments between online and offline responses arise because partial information is misleading. Even with full knowledge of the space of grammatical possibilities, reanalysis is often difficult because of the limitations of memory and control mechanisms. These phenomena do not motivate a two-system view.

-processing overload:
The unsatisfied dependency may fail to generate an error signal because it has simply been “forgotten,” leading to a percept of acceptability. Thus, this misalignment could arise because of limitations on memory and control mechanisms. There is no need to assume two distinct structure building systems.
3 clauses 2 verbs

-properties of memory access mechanisms
, the licensing mechanisms that are invoked to explain the illusions are transparently related to grammatical accounts of NPI licensing. A case for true misalignment of mechanisms arises only if we find that one type of licensing constraint is invoked online and a different type of licensing constraint is most appropriate for capturing offline judgments.

-internal stages of computation