教學大綱 Syllabus

科目名稱：語言理解與心智語法

Course Name: Language Comprehension and Mental Grammar
  • 學年學期：112-1 Fall Semester, 2023
  • 科目代碼：555756001 Course No.555756001

修別：選

Type of Credit: Elective

3.0

學分數

Credit(s)

20

預收人數

Number of Students

課程資料Course Details
  • 開課單位：語言碩一、語言博一、語言碩二、語言博二 Course Department:Institute of Linguistics/G/1&2
  • 授課老師：賴瑶鍈 Instructor: LAI YAO-YING
  • 先修科目：無Prerequisite(N/A)
  • 上課時間：三D56 Session: wed13-16

課程簡介Course Description

This course addresses how human beings comprehend language in real-time, grounded on the architecture of our mental grammar. We will discuss various language processing models rooted in different frameworks of linguistics. To understand how the language architecture supports online sentence comprehension, we will take an overview of the theoretical accounts, examine linguistic patterns and experimental evidence, and discuss advantages/disadvantages of different processing models via a variety of linguistic phenomena, mainly including cases of morphosyntax and semantics-pragmatics.

      The focus will be placed on different views of the language architecture, lexical access, syntax-semantic interface, ambiguity resolution, and contextual impact during online sentence processing. In addition, we will explore the relationship between the linguistic system and nonlinguistic cognition (e.g., social cognition, working memory, and cognitive control) and how the interplay of the two may influence language processing.

核心能力分析圖 Core Competence Analysis Chart

能力項目說明

    課程目標與學習成效Course Objectives & Learning Outcomes

    In this course, students will learn:
    • The structures of mental grammar and the interfaces between linguistic components
    • Various models of real-time language processing
    • Accounts of how human language parser tackles with comprehension issues
    • Techniques and methods in research of sentence processing
    • The interplay of linguistics and cognitive psychology

     

    Through this course, the students will be able to:

    • Understand the major themes and models of human language processing
    • Understand how mental grammar supports sentence comprehension
    • Appreciate different perspectives on the architecture of human language system
    • Apply scientific method and argumentation to research

    每周課程進度與作業要求 Course Schedule & Requirements

    教學週次Course Week 彈性補充教學週次Flexible Supplemental Instruction Week 彈性補充教學類別Flexible Supplemental Instruction Type
    週次
    Week
    課程主題
    Topic 
    教學活動與作業 
    Teaching Activities and Homework
    學習投入時間
    Student workload expectation
    課堂講授
    In-class Hours
    課程前後
    Outside-of-class Hours

    1
    Course overview

    Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    1

    2
    The architecture of the
    human language system
    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    3

    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    4

    Mental lexicon & Lexical access

    Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    5

    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion  3

    5

    6
    Serial accounts
    of language processing
    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    7

    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    8
    Constraint-satisfaction approach
    Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    9

    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    10

    Mid-Term

    Project outline Presentation

    3

    5

    11
    Connectionist models
    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    12
    Good-Enough approach
    to language processing
    Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    13
    Parser-Grammar relations
    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    14
    Parallel Architecture
    for language comprehension
    Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    15
    The processing of Semantic composition
    and Pragmatics
    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    16
    Impact of nonlinguistic cognition
    & Individual differences
    		 Reading, Lecture & Discussion 

    3

    5

    17
    Term Project Presentation
    Oral presentation 

    3

    5

    18
    Term Project Discussion & Submission

    Discussion & Project submission

    3

    6

    授課方式Teaching Approach

    60%

    講述 Lecture

    30%

    討論 Discussion

    %

    小組活動 Group activity

    0%

    數位學習 E-learning

    10%

    其他： Others: 個人專題報告之自主學習

    評量工具與策略、評分標準成效Evaluation Criteria

    Grading:

    1. Participation in class discussion ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ 30%
    2. Paper summary & discussion ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ 20%
    3. Midterm outline & presentation ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ 15%
    4. Term paper & presentation ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ 35%

     

    Academic Integrity:

    Students are required to remain truthful in presentations, papers, and reports throughout the course. Plagiarism, lying, falsification, fabrication, improper use of electronic devices, taking others' ideas without permission, or other dishonesty are prohibited and will result in penalties according to the university policy.

    指定/參考書目Textbook & References

     

    We will read and discuss articles associated with the topic of each week from various sources (journal papers, book chapters, etc.).
    *The articles to read are subject to change, adjustable according to the interests of the enrolled students and the course schedule as we proceed.

    • Altmann, G. (1987). Modularity and interaction in sentence processing. Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing, 428-444.
    • Baggio, G. (2021). Compositionality in a parallel architecture for language processing. Cognitive Science, 45(5), e12949.
    • Byrd & Mintz (2010) Ch4 - Scientific Method and Experimental Design. Discovering speech, words, and mind. John Wiley & Sons.
    • Chow, W. Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 577-596. 
    • Crain, S., Ni, W., Shankweiler, D., Conway, L., & Braze, D. (1996). Meaning, memory, and modularity. In Proceedings of the NELS 26 Sentence Processing Workshop, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 9, pp. 27-44).
    • Frazier, L. (2015). Two interpretive systems for natural language?. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 44(1), 7-25.
    • Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291-325. 
    • Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1‐2), 71-83.
    • Frisson, S., & Traxler, M. J. (2013). Semantic interpretation of sentences. In Sentence processing (pp. 172-200). Psychology Press.
    • Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1-2), 88-124.
    • Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press, USA.
    • Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain research, 1146, 2-22.
    • Jackendoff, R. (2010). The parallel architecture and its place in cognitive science. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis.
    • Joanisse, M. F., & McClelland, J. L. (2015). Connectionist perspectives on language learning, representation and processing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(3), 235-247.
    • Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 69(5), 1013-1040.
    • Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(2), 154-169.
    • Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?. Language, cognition and neuroscience, 31(1), 32-59.
    • Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27-46.
    • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution.
    • Martin, A. E., & Baggio, G. (2020). Modelling meaning composition from formalism to mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1791), 20190298.
    • Novick, J. M., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186-217.
    • Phillips, C. (2013). Parser-grammar relations: We don’t understand everything twice. Language Down the Garden Path: The Cognitive and Biological Basis for Linguistic Structures, 294-315.
    • Piñango, M. M. (2019). Concept composition during language processing: Two case studies and a model. In The Routledge handbook of Chinese applied linguistics (pp. 624-644). Routledge.
    • Piñango, M. M. (2023). Solving the elusiveness of word meanings: two arguments for a continuous meaning space for language. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1025293.
    • Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(9), 382-386.
    • Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E. B., & Grimshaw, J. (1989). Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 18(2), 223-243.
    • Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 18(6), 645-659.
    • Townsend, D. J. & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.
    • Thothathiri, M., Asaro, C. T., Hsu, N. S., & Novick, J. M. (2018). Who did what? A causal role for cognitive control in thematic role assignment during sentence comprehension. Cognition, 178, 162-177.
    • Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution.
    • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of memory and language, 33(3), 285-318.
    • Van Gompel, R. P. (Ed.). (2013). Sentence processing. Psychology Press.
    • Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 225-258.

    已申請之圖書館指定參考書目 圖書館指定參考書查詢 |相關處理要點

    維護智慧財產權，務必使用正版書籍。 Respect Copyright.

    課程相關連結Course Related Links

    
            
    
        
    
        
    
        
    
            
    
                
                
    
                
    課程附件Course Attachments
    
            
    
            
    
                
                
      
                
    
            
    
        
    
    
    
    
    
        
    
            
            
    
                
                
    
                    課程進行中，使用智慧型手機、平板等隨身設備
                    To Use Smart Devices During the Class
                
    
                
    
                        
                            需經教師同意始得使用
                        
                        Approval
                
    
            
    
        
    
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
    
            
    列印