The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 566-585

  Trueswell, John C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030209789     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0030     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. BEVER, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.) Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
2. BOLAND, J. E., TANENHAUS, M. K., GARNSEY, S. M., & CARLSON, G. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774-806.
3. BRITT, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251-283.
4. BRITT, M. A., PERFETTI, C. A., GARROD, S., & RAYNER, K. (1992). Parsing and discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 293-314.
5. BURGESS, C. (1991). Interaction of semantic, syntactic and visual factors in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
6. BURGESS, C., & HOLLBACH, S. C. (1988). A computational model of syntactic ambiguity as a lexical process. In Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. BURGESS, C., TANENHAUS, M., & HOFFMAN, M. (1994). Parafoveal and semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 16th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. CRAIN, S., & STEEDMAN, M. J. (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 parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. DAUGHERTY, K., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1992). Rules or connections? The past tense revisited. In Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. DUFFY, S. A., MORRIS, R. K., & RAYNER, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
11. FERREIRA, F., & CLIFTON, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
12. FISHER, C., GLEITMAN, H., & GLEITMAN, L. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognition, 23, 331-392.
13. FORD, M., BRESNAN, J., & KAPLAN, R. (1982). A competence based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. FRANCIS, W. N., & KUCERA, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
15. FRAZIER, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. FRAZIER, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. FRAZIER, L., & FODOR, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
18. 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.
19. JULIANO, C., & TABOR, W. (1995). Frequency-contrast and grammatical representation: The case of frequency by regularity interactions. Paper presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Tucson, AZ.
20. JULIANO, C., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1993). Contingent frequency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. JUST, M. A., CARPENTER, P. A., & WOOLLEY, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 111, 228-238.
22. MACDONALD, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
23. MACDONALD, M. C., PEARLMUTTER, N. J., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1994a). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
24. MACDONALD, M. C., PEARLMUTTER, N. J., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1994b). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., & TYLER, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representations and natural language understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. NI, W., & CRAIN, S. (1990). How to resolve structural ambiguities. In Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Student Linguistics Association.
28. PEARLMUTTER, N. J., & MACDONALD, M. C. (1992). Garden-paths in "simple" sentences. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York, NY.
29. PEARLMUTTER, N. J., MACDONALD, M. C., & DAUGHERTY, K., SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1993). Constraint satisfaction in main verb/reduced relative ambiguities. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Amherst, MA.
30. PLAUT, D. C., MCCLELLAND, J. L., SEIDENBERG, M. S., & PATTERSON, K. E. (1996). Understanding Normal and Impaired Word Reading: Computational Principles of Quasi-Regular Domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
31. RAYNER, K., CARLSON, M., & FRAZIER, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
32. RAYNER, K., & FRAZIER, L. (1989). Selectional mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 5, 779-790.
33. RAYNER, K., GARROD, S., & PERFETTI, C. A. (1992). Discourse influences during parsing are delayed. Cognition, 45, 109-139.
34. RAYNER, K., PACHT, J. M., & DUFFY, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527-544.
35. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
36. SERENO, S. C., PACHT, J. M., & RAYNER, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3(5), 296-299.
37. SIMPSON, G., & BURGESS, B. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28-39.
38. SIMPSON, G. B., & KRUEGER, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627-643.
39. SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M. J., & SEDIVY, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
40. SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M. J., TRUESWELL, J. C., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1993). Context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 47, 276-309.
41. SWINNEY, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
42. TABOSSI, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324-340.
43. TABOSSI, P., COLOMBO, L., JOB., R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2-3), 161-167.
44. TABOSSI, P., SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M. J., MCRAE, K., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.) Attention and performance XV. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. TABOSSI, P., & ZARDON, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 359-372.
46. TANENHAUS, M. K., LEIMAN, J., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427-440.
47. TANENHAUS, M. K., SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M. J., EBERHARD, K. M., & SEDIVY, J. C. (1995). Interpretation of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
48. TRUESWELL, J. C., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, K. Rayner, & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49. TRUESWELL, J. C., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1991). Tense, temporal context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 303-338.
50. 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.
51. TRUESWELL, J. C., TANENHAUS, M. K., & KELLO, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19(3), 528-553.