The Relationship between the Frequency and the Processing Complexity of Linguistic Structure

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 59-92

  Gibson, Edward ^a   Schütze, Carson T ^a   Salomon, Ariel ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

COGNITION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0029692302     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF01708420     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence Processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Bever, Thomas G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279-362). New York: Wiley.
5. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353-372.
6. Clifton, C., Jr. (1988, August). Restrictions on late closure: Appearance and reality. Paper presented at the 6th Australian Language and Speech Conference, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
7. Clifton, C. Jr., Speer, S., & Abney, S. P. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251-271.
8. Corley, M., & Corley, S. (1995). Cross-linguistic and inter-linguistic evidence for the use of statistics in human sentence processing. Unpublished manuscript. University of Exeter, Exeter, England, and University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
9. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320-358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
11. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., & Corley, M. M. B. (in press). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sabastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189-206.
13. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
14. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. 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.
16. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
17. Gibson, E., & Loomis, J. (1994). A corpus analysis of recency preference and predicate proximity. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 357-362) Atlanta, GA. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1994) A corpus-based analysis of psycholinguistic constraints on prepositional phrase attachment. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives in sentence processing (pp. 181-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (in press). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition.
20. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
21. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hays, W. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
23. Hindle, D., & Rooth, M. (1993). Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. Computational Linguistics, 9, 103-120.
24. Hobbs, J. R., & Bear, J. (1990). Two principles of parse preference. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (vol. 3, pp. 162-167). University of Helsinki.
25. Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). A constraint-based lexical account of the subject/object attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 459-472.
26. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2, 15-47.
27. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
28. MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692-715.
29. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
30. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English; The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.
31. Merlo, P. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of verb-continuation frequencies for syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 435-458.
32. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
33. Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375-409). New York: Academic Press.
34. Mitchell, D. C., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. Conference proceedings: Current issues in natural language processing, (pp. 1-12). Austin: University of Texas at Austin, CT.
35. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., & Corley, M. M. B. (1992, March). Statistical versus linguistic determinants of parsing bias: Cross-linguistic evidence. Paper presented at the 5th annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New York.
36. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Unpublished manuscript, University of Exeter, Exeter, England.
37. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983) The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
38. Ross, J. R. (1968). Universal constraints on variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
39. Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
40. Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. R. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597-632.