Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 965-978

  Speer, Shari R ^a   Clifton Jr , Charles ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MENTAL TASK; RATING SCALE; READING; SPEECH ARTICULATION; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

EID: 0031753327     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03201177     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. ABNEY, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129-144.
2. BAKEMAN, R., & MCARTHUR, D. (1996). Picturing repeated measures: Comments on Loftus, Morrison, and others. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 584-589.
3. BEVER, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279-352). New York: Wiley.
4. BRITT, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 251-283.
5. BRYSBAERT, M., & MITCHELL, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
6. CARREIRAS, M., & CLIFTON, C., JR. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language & Speech, 36, 353-372.
7. CHURCH, K. (1980). On memory limitations in natural language processing. Unpublished master's thesis, MIT.
8. CLARK, H. H., & CLARK, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
9. CLIFTON, C., JR., & FERREIRA, F. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Some experimental results. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. CLIFTON, C., JR., SPEER, S. R., & ABNEY, S. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 251-271.
11. CROCKER, M. (1994). On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 245-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. FRANCIS, W. N., & KUČERA, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
13. FRAZIER, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
14. FRAZIER, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. FRAZIER, L. (1990). Exploring the architecture of the language system. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 409-433). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. FRAZIER, L., & CLIFTON, C., JR. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. 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.
18. GARNSEY, S. M., PEARLMUTTER, N. J., MYERS, E., & LOTOCKY, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 58-93.
19. GILBOY, E., SOPENA, J., CLIFTON, C., JR., & FRAZIER, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
20. HEMFORTH, B., KONIECZNY, L., SCHEEPERS, C., & STRUBE, G. (Eds.) (1994). First analysis, reanalysis, and repair. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiberg, Institut für Informatik und Gesellschaft.
21. JUST, M. A., & CARPENTER, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 109-130.
22. KENNEDY, A., & MURRAY, W. S. (1984). Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 833-847.
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, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 123-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189, 226-228.
26. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., & TYLER, L. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 8, 1-72.
27. MCCLELLAND, J. L., ST. JOHN, M., & TARABAN, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach. Language & Cognitive Processes, 4, 287-336.
28. PRITCHETT, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. RAYNER, K., SERENO, S., MORRIS, R., SCHMAUDER, R., & CLIFTON, C., JR. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language & Cognitive Processes, 4, 21-50.
30. SCHMAUDER, A. R., & EGAN, M. C. (1995, November). Verb subcategorization information, argument fit, and on-line sentence processing. Poster presented at the 36th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
31. SCHMAUDER, A. R., & EGAN, M. C. (1996, March). On the impact of semantic fit and verb bias on the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguity. Poster presented at the ninth annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
32. SCHÜTZE, C. T. (1995). PP attachment and argumenthood. In C. T. Schütze, J. B. Granger, & K. Broihier (Eds.), Papers on language processing and acquisition (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 26, pp. 95-151). Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics.
33. SCHÜTZE, C. T., & GIBSON, E. (1996, January). Argument structure in English PP attachment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.
34. SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M., & SEDIVY, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition. 55, 227-267.
35. TARABAN, R., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 597-632.
36. TRAXLER, M., & PICKERING, M. (1995. March). Evidence against statistical parsing. Poster presented at the eighth annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tuscon, AZ.
37. TRUESWELL, J. C., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. 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, & Cognition, 19, 528-553.