title: Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation.
abstract: Sentence processing theories typically assume that the input to our language processing mechanisms is an error-free sequence of words. However, this assumption is an oversimplification because noise is present in typical language use (for instance, due to a noisy environment, producer errors, or perceiver errors). A complete theory of human sentence comprehension therefore needs to explain how humans understand language given imperfect input. Indeed, like many cognitive systems, language processing mechanisms may even be "well designed"--in this case for the task of recovering intended meaning from noisy utterances. In particular, comprehension mechanisms may be sensitive to the types of information that an idealized statistical comprehender would be sensitive to. Here, we evaluate four predictions about such a rational (Bayesian) noisy-channel language comprehender in a sentence comprehension task: (i) semantic cues should pull sentence interpretation towards plausible meanings, especially if the wording of the more plausible meaning is close to the observed utterance in terms of the number of edits; (ii) this process should asymmetrically treat insertions and deletions due to the Bayesian "size principle"; such nonliteral interpretation of sentences should (iii) increase with the perceived noise rate of the communicative situation and (iv) decrease if semantically anomalous meanings are more likely to be communicated. These predictions are borne out, strongly suggesting that human language relies on rational statistical inference over a noisy channel.
authors: Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
authors: Edward
authors: E
authors: Gibson
authors: Leon
authors: L
authors: Bergen
authors: Steven T
authors: ST
authors: Piantadosi
mesh_terms: D001499:Bayes Theorem; D003071:Cognition; D003142:Communication; D032882:Comprehension; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D009323:Natural Language Processing; D011578:Psycholinguistics; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012660:Semantics
keywords: communication; psycholinguistics; rational inference
references: Neuropsychologia. 1998 Mar;36(3):217-26
references: 9622187
references: Cognition. 1998 Aug;68(1):1-76
references: 9775516
references: Brain Lang. 2003 Apr;85(1):1-36
references: 12681346
references: Science. 1980 Jan 11;207(4427):203-5
references: 7350657
references: Cogn Psychol. 2003 Sep;47(2):164-203
references: 12948517
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2001 Jan;30(1):3-20
references: 11291182
references: Lang Speech. 2004;47(Pt 1):31-56
references: 15298329
references: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):804-9
references: 18582855
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 15;106(50):21086-90
references: 19965371
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 1995 Spring;7(2):228-57
references: 23961826
references: Psychol Sci. 2010 Nov;21(11):1664-70
references: 20876883
references: Psychol Rev. 1989 Apr;96(2):267-314
references: 2652171
references: Brain Lang. 1991 Aug;41(2):234-49
references: 1933259
references: Science. 1995 Jun 16;268(5217):1632-4
references: 7777863
references: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77
references: 17662975
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Feb;3(2):57-65
references: 10234228
references: Brain Res. 2007 May 18;1146:23-49
references: 17400197
references: Psychol Rev. 2007 Apr;114(2):245-72
references: 17500627
references: Brain Lang. 1991 Feb;40(2):231-65
references: 1709815
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Jul;18(7):1181-97
references: 16839291
references: Brain Res. 2007 Jan 26;1130(1):167-80
references: 17173867