Garden path sentences present a processing difficulty for humans -- the sentence prefix leads the listener towards one interpretation, until the listener hears a critical word that shows that the initial interpretation was wrong. Lexical surprisal, a measure that usually predicts sentence processing difficulty quite well, fails to provide good predictions for garden path sentences. We propose an alternative that actively predicts a probability distribution over syntactic trees (its syntactic belief) and updates that distribution after each new word. If a processor is led down a garden path, syntactic beliefs will be wrong and will require a large update at the critical word. The magnitude of the update is measured with a generalized Rényi divergence. Crucially, this metric is dependent on lexical items, but is fully independent of the probability of lexical items. This Syntactic Belief Update provides a better fit to the human reading time data on garden path sentences. This suggests a new research direction examining purely non-lexical alternatives to surprisal for psycholinguistics.
Surprisal theory hypothesizes that the difficulty of human sentence processing increases linearly with surprisal, the negative log-probability of a word given its context. Computational psycholinguistics has tested this hypothesis using language models (LMs) as proxies for human prediction. While surprisal derived from recent neural LMs generally captures human processing difficulty on naturalistic corpora that predominantly consist of simple sentences, it severely underestimates processing difficulty on sentences that require syntactic disambiguation (garden-path effects). This leads to the claim that the processing difficulty of such sentences cannot be reduced to surprisal, although it remains possible that neural LMs simply differ from humans in next-word prediction. In this paper, we investigate whether it is truly impossible to construct a neural LM that can explain garden-path effects via surprisal. Specifically, instead of evaluating off-the-shelf neural LMs, we fine-tune these LMs on garden-path sentences so as to better align surprisal-based reading-time estimates with actual human reading times. Our results show that fine-tuned LMs do not overfit and successfully capture human reading slowdowns on held-out garden-path items; they even improve predictive power for human reading times on naturalistic corpora and preserve their general LM capabilities. These results provide an existence proof for a neural LM that can explain both garden-path effects and naturalistic reading times via surprisal, but also raise a theoretical question: what kind of evidence can truly falsify surprisal theory?
Surprisal theory posits that the processing difficulty of a word is determined by its predictability in context, offering a potential link between human sentence processing and next-word predictions from language models. While language model (LM) surprisals successfully predict reading times in naturalistic text, they systematically underpredict the magnitude of difficulty observed in controlled studies of syntactic ambiguity, particularly in garden path sentences. This mismatch might arise from differences in the computational constraints between humans and LMs. Here we test one such hypothesis, specifically, that LMs may be able to simultaneously consider a greater number of distinct sentence interpretations at once, compared to humans. Using Recurrent Neural Network Grammars (RNNGs) with word-synchronous beam search, we systematically vary the number of simultaneous parses used to compute word surprisal, and then use these surprisals to predict human reading times. Reducing the number of simultaneous active parses indeed increases the magnitude of predicted garden path effects, but not nearly enough to capture the full magnitude of the effects in humans. This suggests that differences in the number of simultaneous parses available to LMs and humans cannot reconcile LM-based surprisal with human sentence processing.
A key question in psycholinguistics is how inferences about the meaning of linguistic input unfold incrementally a comprehender's mind. In this work, we study reading dynamics for ``noisy-channel garden-path'' sentences, which temporarily appear well-formed but feature late-appearing violations of expectation that can be resolved not by inferring an alternative syntactic structure, but by inferring the presence of an error. We find evidence for targeted regressions -- eye movements towards regions that are promising loci of possible errors in light of later-arriving information, showing patterns consistent with the posterior inferences of a model of noisy-channel processing with reanalysis. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of noisy-channel language comprehension and information-theoretic explanations of reading dynamics.