Search for: All records

How do comprehenders interpret semantically implausible sentences? Previous studies proposed a noisy-channel framework of sentence comprehension, where communication between a speaker and a comprehender happens in a noisy channel. The comprehender rationally adopts an interpretation of a sentence based on how likely the interpretation is (the semantic prior) and how likely is the interpretation corrupted into the perceived sentence because of noise (the likelihood). The theory predicted that comprehenders would be more likely to adopt a literal interpretation of an implausible sentence if their prior of implausible sentences were higher. To test this hypothesis, Gibson et al. manipulated the proportion of implausible test sentences in two sets of experiments, where participants read a number of sentences and answer a comprehension question following each sentence. Although their results supported the hypothesis, the experiment could be confounded (a) by participants’ adaptation effect (due to different experiment lengths) and (b) by different participants having different strategies to do the task (due to the between-subject design). In our study, we manipulated the semantic prior and controlled for these potential confounds. We found participants exposed to more implausible sentences were indeed more likely to interpret implausible sentences literally. Our results hence offer additional support for the noisy-channel framework. 

Abstract Individuals with “agrammatic” receptive aphasia have long been known to rely on semantic plausibility rather than syntactic cues when interpreting sentences. In contrast to early interpretations of this pattern as indicative of a deficit in syntactic knowledge, a recent proposal views agrammatic comprehension as a case of “noisy-channel” language processing with an increased expectation of noise in the input relative to healthy adults. Here, we investigate the nature of the noise model in aphasia and whether it is adapted to the statistics of the environment. We first replicate findings that a) healthy adults (N= 40) make inferences about the intended meaning of a sentence by weighing the prior probability of an intended sentence against the likelihood of a noise corruption and b) their estimate of the probability of noise increases when there are more errors in the input (manipulated via exposure sentences). We then extend prior findings that adults with chronic post-stroke aphasia (N= 28) and healthy age-matched adults (N= 19) similarly engage in noisy-channel inference during comprehension. We use a hierarchical latent mixture modeling approach to account for the fact that rates of guessing are likely to differ between healthy controls and individuals with aphasia and capture individual differences in the tendency to make inferences. We show that individuals with aphasia are more likely than healthy controls to draw noisy-channel inferences when interpreting semantically implausible sentences, even when group differences in the tendency to guess are accounted for. While healthy adults rapidly adapt their inference rates to an increase in noise in their input, whether individuals with aphasia do the same remains equivocal. Further investigation of comprehension through a noisy-channel lens holds promise for a parsimonious understanding of language processing in aphasia and may suggest potential avenues for treatment. 

Abstract Previous work has shown that English native speakers interpret sentences as predicted by a noisy‐channel model: They integrate both the real‐world plausibility of the meaning—the prior—and the likelihood that the intended sentence may be corrupted into the perceived sentence. In this study, we test the noisy‐channel model in Mandarin Chinese, a language taxonomically different from English. We present native Mandarin speakers sentences in a written modality (Experiment 1) and an auditory modality (Experiment 2) in three pairs of syntactic alternations. The critical materials are literally implausible but require differing numbers and types of edits in order to form more plausible sentences. Each sentence is followed by a comprehension question that allows us to infer whether the speakers interpreted the item literally, or made an inference toward a more likely meaning. Similar to previous research on related English constructions, Mandarin participants made the most inferences for implausible materials that could be inferred as plausible by deleting a single morpheme or inserting a single morpheme. Participants were less likely to infer a plausible meaning for materials that could be inferred as plausible by making an exchange across a preposition. And participants were least likely to infer a plausible meaning for materials that could be inferred as plausible by making an exchange across a main verb. Moreover, we found more inferences in written materials than spoken materials, possibly a result of a lack of word boundaries in written Chinese. Overall, the fact that the results were so similar to those found in related constructions in English suggests that the noisy‐channel proposal is robust.