Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Deep center-embedding constructions are extraordinarily difficult to process
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Processing difficulty is gradient and context-dependent, not binary; trained readers parse depth-3 embeddings with moderate effort given typographic or prosodic cues.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Fodor and Frazier's garden-path research shows parsing difficulty dissipates upon re-analysis, indicating temporary load rather than principled incomprehensibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Rarity of occurrence in corpora conflates performance limitations with competence constraints, a distinction Chomsky's generative framework explicitly warns against.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A construction's absence from natural usage cannot establish cognitive inaccessibility, since frequency reflects pragmatic and stylistic pressures independent of grammatical processing capacity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Depth-3 center-embedded sentences such as 'Vehicles that engineers who car companies trust build crash every day' are semantically plausible yet practically incomprehensible
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Such sentences virtually never occur even in writing
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.