Publications

Displaying 1 - 5 of 5
  • Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. C. (2010). Modeling the noun phrase versus sentence coordination ambiguity in Dutch: Evidence from Surprisal Theory. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, ACL 2010 (pp. 72-80). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Abstract

    This paper investigates whether surprisal theory can account for differential processing difficulty in the NP-/S-coordination ambiguity in Dutch. Surprisal is estimated using a Probabilistic Context-Free Grammar (PCFG), which is induced from an automatically annotated corpus. We find that our lexicalized surprisal model can account for the reading time data from a classic experiment on this ambiguity by Frazier (1987). We argue that syntactic and lexical probabilities, as specified in a PCFG, are sufficient to account for what is commonly referred to as an NP-coordination preference.
  • Fitz, H. (2010). Statistical learning of complex questions. In S. Ohlsson, & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2692-2698). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Abstract

    The problem of auxiliary fronting in complex polar questions occupies a prominent position within the nature versus nurture controversy in language acquisition. We employ a model of statistical learning which uses sequential and semantic information to produce utterances from a bag of words. This linear learner is capable of generating grammatical questions without exposure to these structures in its training environment. We also demonstrate that the model performs superior to n-gram learners on this task. Implications for nativist theories of language acquisition are discussed.
  • Bod, R., Fitz, H., & Zuidema, W. (2006). On the structural ambiguity in natural language that the neural architecture cannot deal with [Commentary]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 71-72. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06239025.

    Abstract

    We argue that van der Velde's & de Kamps's model does not solve the binding problem but merely shifts the burden of constructing appropriate neural representations of sentence structure to unexplained preprocessing of the linguistic input. As a consequence, their model is not able to explain how various neural representations can be assigned to sentences that are structurally ambiguous.
  • Fitz, H. (2006). Church's thesis and physical computation. In A. Olszewski, J. Wolenski, & R. Janusz (Eds.), Church's Thesis after 70 years (pp. 175-219). Frankfurt a. M: Ontos Verlag.
  • Fitz, H. (2001). Church's Thesis: A philosophical critique of modern computability theory. Master Thesis, Freie Universität Berlin.

Share this page