Early, Mandatory, Pragmatic Processing

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 1-22

  Murray, Wayne S ^a   Rowan, Murray ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002670184     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023233406227     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Clahsen, H., Hong, U., & Sonnenstuhl-Henning, I. (1995). Grammatical constraints in syntactic processing: Sentence-matching experiments in German. Poster presented at CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.
2. Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1987). Sentence matching and overgeneration. Cognition, 26, 123-170.
3. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. F., Walker, E. C. T., & Parkes, C. H. (1980). Against definitions. Cognition, 8, 263-367.
5. Fodor, J. D., Fodor, J. A., & Garrett, M. F. (1975). The psychological unreality of semantic representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 515-531.
6. Fodor, J. D., Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Tasks and timing in the perception of linguistic anomaly. Journal of Psycholinguistc Research, 25, 25-57.
7. Forster, K. I. (1974). The role of semantic hypotheses in sentence processing. In F. Bresson & J. Mehler (Eds.), Current problems in psycholinguistics. Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S.
8. Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Forster, K. I. (1987). Binding, plausibility, and modularity. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Forster, K. I., & Stevenson, B. J. (1987). Sentence matching and well-formedness. Cognition, 26, 171-186.
11. Freedman, S. E., & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101-132.
12. Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119-148.
13. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: Fixation measures foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 201-221.
14. Kennedy, A., & Murray, W. S. (1987). The components of reading time. In J. K. O'Regan & A. Levy-Schoen (Eds.). Eye movements: From physiology to cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
15. Kennedy, A., Murray, W. S., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes 4, SI51-76.
16. Konieczny, L. (1996). Human sentence processing: A semantics oriented parsing approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
17. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C. & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.
18. Kucera, H. & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
19. Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1996). A comparative analysis of qualitatively different eye movement measures. Poster presented at CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New York.
20. Mitchell, D. C., Corley, M. M. B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory and Cognition, 18, 69-88.
21. Murray, W. S. (1982). Sentence matching: The influence of meaning and structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
22. Murray, W. S., & Liversedge, S. P. (1994). Referential context effects on syntactic processing. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 59-388). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Murray, W. S., Watt, S. M. & Kennedy, A. (1994). Influences of sensory form on syntactic processing options. Experimental Psychology Society, Exeter.
24. O'Regan, J. K. (1990). Eye movements and reading. In E. Kowler (Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes (pp. 395-453). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
25. Pickering, M. J., & Barry, G. (1993). Dependency categorial grammar and coordination. Linguistics, 31, 855-902.
26. Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (in press). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
27. Ratcliff, J. (1983). Inference processes in the early stages of sentence comprehension: A study of the plausibility effect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
28. Speer, S., & Clifton, C. Jr. (in press). Memory and Cognition.
29. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996) Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454-475.
30. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.