Mode of disambiguation and garden-path strength: An investigation of subject-object ambiguities in German

Language and Speech

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 43-74

  Meng, Michael ^a   Bader, Markus ^a  

^a FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

German; Reanalysis; Sentence parsing

Indexed keywords

EID: 0006724345     PISSN: 00238309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00238309000430010201     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. BADER, M. (1994). Syntactic-function ambiguities. Folia Linguistica, 28, 5-66.
2. BADER, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3. BADER, M., BAYER, J., HOPF, J.-M., & MENG, M. (1996). Case-assignment in processing German verb-final clauses. In C. Schütze (Ed.), Proceedings of the NELS 26 Sentence Processing Workshop. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 9 (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
4. BADER, M., & MENG, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121-143.
5. CHOMSKY, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
6. CROCKER, M. (1996). Computationalpsycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
7. FERREIRA, F., & CLIFTON, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
8. FERREIRA, F., & HENDERSON, J. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555-568.
9. FERREIRA, F., & HENDERSON, J. (1991). Recovery from misanalysis of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725-745.
10. FERREIRA, F., & HENDERSON, J. (1998). Syntactic reanalysis, thematic processing, and sentence comprehension. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 73-100). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
11. FODOR, J. D., & INOUE, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal ofPsychoIinguistic Research, 23, 407-434.
12. FODOR, J. D., & INOUE, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101-141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
13. FODOR, J. D., & INOUE, A. (in press, a). Garden path diagnosis: Agreement and case. Language and Speech, (forthcoming).
14. FODOR, J. D., & INOUE, A. (2000). Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 25-36.
15. FRAZIER, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
16. FRAZIER, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519-559.
17. FRAZIER, L. (1990). Exploring the architecture of the language processing system. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 409-433). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. FRAZIER, L., & CLIFTON, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. FRAZIER, L., & CLIFTON, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 143-176). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
20. FRAZIER, L., & RAYNER, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
21. GIBSON, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
22. GIBSON, E., HICKOK, G., & SCHÜTZE, C. (1994). Processing empty categories: A parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 381-405.
23. GORRELL, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
24. GORRELL, P. (1996). Parsing theory and phrase-order variation in German V2 clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 135-156.
25. GORRELL, P. (2000). The subject-before-object preference in German clauses. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 25-63). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
26. HABERLANDT, K. (1994). Methods in reading research. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 1-31). San Diego: Academic Press.
27. HEMFORTH, B., KONIECZNY, L., & STRUBE, G. (1993). Incremental syntax processing and parsing strategies. Proceedings of the XVth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 539-544). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. INOUE, A., & FODOR, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 9-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. JUST, M., CARPENTER, P., & WOLLEY, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
30. KAAN, E. (1997). Processing subject-object ambiguities in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics, 20).
31. KENNEDY, A., & MURRAY, W. (1984). Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 833-849.
32. LEWIS, R. L. (1998). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden-path. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 247-285). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
33. MENG, M. (1997). Grammatik und Sprachverarbeitung: Psycholinguistische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung syntaktischer Strukturen [Grammar and language processing: Psycholinguistic investigations into the computation of syntactic structures]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Jena.
34. MENG, M., & BADER, M. (1999). Ungrammaticality detection and garden-path strength: Evidence for serial parsing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
35. MITCHELL, D. (1984). An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods for investigating immediate processes in reading. In D. Kieras & M. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. SCHLESEWSKY, M., FANSELOW, G., KLIEGL, R., & KREMS, J. (2000). Preferences for grammatical functions in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 65-93). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
37. SCHRIEFERS, H., FRIEDERICI, A., & KÜHN, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499-520.
38. STURT, P., & CROCKER, M. (1998a). Generalized monotonicity for reanalysis models. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 365-400). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
39. STURT, P., & CROCKER, M. (1998b). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 297-322.
40. TRUESWELL, J., TANENHAUS, M., & GARNSEY, S. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
41. VINCENZI, M. de (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
42. WARNER, J., & GLASS, A. (1987). Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticalicity judgments of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714-738.