structural ambiguities
This sentence is supposed to prove why serial or garden-path parsers don't always work:
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Serial parser would interpret it as: *[The horse] [[raced] [past the barn]] FELL.
This, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Therefore, a parallel parser is supposed to explain it better because parallel parsers build all possible structuers at each possible point to see which one makes the most sense.
Parallel:
1. *[The horse] [[raced] [past the barn]] FELL.
2. [The horse] [[(that) raced] [past the barn]] fell.
Now, I can accept the second version of the parallel parser. The horse that raced past the barn fell. Ok. But only if there really was a "that" in the sentence. They say that (haha look, I said "that") "that" can be explicitly said or inferred--while this is sometimes true, I don't think it applies in this case. Even knowing how I'm supposed to interpret it, I simply cannot get the meaning that they want from "The horse raced past the barn fell." Every single time I have to consciously go back and re-read the sentence and consciously add the "that" into the sentence. Inferred "that"s shouldn't need to be consciously added to have a sentence make sense. Therefore, I think this sentence was a HORRID one to make their point.
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Serial parser would interpret it as: *[The horse] [[raced] [past the barn]] FELL.
This, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Therefore, a parallel parser is supposed to explain it better because parallel parsers build all possible structuers at each possible point to see which one makes the most sense.
Parallel:
1. *[The horse] [[raced] [past the barn]] FELL.
2. [The horse] [[(that) raced] [past the barn]] fell.
Now, I can accept the second version of the parallel parser. The horse that raced past the barn fell. Ok. But only if there really was a "that" in the sentence. They say that (haha look, I said "that") "that" can be explicitly said or inferred--while this is sometimes true, I don't think it applies in this case. Even knowing how I'm supposed to interpret it, I simply cannot get the meaning that they want from "The horse raced past the barn fell." Every single time I have to consciously go back and re-read the sentence and consciously add the "that" into the sentence. Inferred "that"s shouldn't need to be consciously added to have a sentence make sense. Therefore, I think this sentence was a HORRID one to make their point.