  Syntactic ambiguity abounds in natural language, yet humans have no
difficulty coping with it. In fact, the process of ambiguity resolution is
almost always unconscious. But it is not infallible, however, as example 1
demonstrates.
  1. The horse raced past the barn fell.
  This sentence is perfectly grammatical, as is evident when it appears in the
following context:
  2. Two horses were being shown off to a prospective buyer. One was raced past
a meadow. and the other was raced past a barn. ...
  Grammatical yet unprocessable sentences such as 1 are called `garden-path
sentences.' Their existence provides an opportunity to investigate the human
sentence processing mechanism by studying how and when it fails. The aim of
this thesis is to construct a computational model of language understanding
which can predict processing difficulty. The data to be modeled are known
examples of garden path and non-garden path sentences, and other results from
psycholinguistics.
  It is widely believed that there are two distinct loci of computation in
sentence processing: syntactic parsing and semantic interpretation. One
longstanding controversy is which of these two modules bears responsibility for
the immediate resolution of ambiguity. My claim is that it is the latter, and
that the syntactic processing module is a very simple device which blindly and
faithfully constructs all possible analyses for the sentence up to the current
point of processing. The interpretive module serves as a filter, occasionally
discarding certain of these analyses which it deems less appropriate for the
ongoing discourse than their competitors.
  This document is divided into three parts. The first is introductory, and
reviews a selection of proposals from the sentence processing literature. The
second part explores a body of data which has been adduced in support of a
theory of structural preferences --- one that is inconsistent with the present
claim. I show how the current proposal can be specified to account for the
available data, and moreover to predict where structural preference theories
will go wrong. The third part is a theoretical investigation of how well the
proposed architecture can be realized using current conceptions of linguistic
competence. In it, I present a parsing algorithm and a meaning-based ambiguity
resolution method.
