A Study on Late Closure in Spanish: Principle-grounded vs. Frequency-based Accounts of Attachment Preferences

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 561-592

  Igoa, José M ^a   Carreiras, Manuel ^b   Meseguer, Enrique ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032383847     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713755775     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abney, S.P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129-144.
2. Alameda, J.R., & Cuetos, F. (1995). Corpus de textos escritos del español. Unpublished manuscript, Universidad de Oviedo.
3. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D.C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
5. Carreiras, M. (1992). Estrategias de análisis sintáctico en el procesamiento de frases: Cierre temprano versus cierre tardío, Cognitiva, 4, 3-27.
6. Carreiras, M. (1995). Influencia de las propiedades del verbo en la comprensión de frases. In M. Carretero J. Almaraz, & P. Fernández-Berrocal (Eds.), Razonamiento y comprensión. Madrid: Trotta.
7. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353-372.
8. Carreiras, M., Igoa, J.M., & Meseguer, E. (1996). Is the linguistic tuning hypothesis out of tune? Immediate vs delayed attachment decisions in late closure sentences in Spanish. Paper presented at the Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing (AMLaP), Turin, Italy, September.
9. Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 696-708.
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. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J.E. García-Albea, & N. Sebastián-Gallés (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish. Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy: Evidence from Italian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189-206.
13. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1-19.
14. Fernández Lagunilla, M., & Anula, A. (1995). Sintaxis y cognición. Madrid: Trotta.
15. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
16. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J.M. (1990). Use of verb information during syntactic parsing. Evidence from eye-movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 555-568.
17. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R.M. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnand (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing. A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance, Vol. XII: The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19. Frazier L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. 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 and Language, 37, 58-93.
21. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N.J. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of psycholinguist constraints on prepositional phrase attachment. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N.J., Canseco-González, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
23. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J.M., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
24. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1994). Principle-based or probabilistic approaches to human sentence processing. In First analysis, reanalysis and repair. IIG-Berichte 8/94. Albert-Ludwigs Universität, Freiburg, Germany.
25. Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. (1993). Contigent frequency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceeding of the 15 Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 593-598). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Konieczny, L. (1996). Human sentence processing: A semantics-oriented parsing approach. Unpublished PhD., Albert-Ludwigs Universität, Freiburg, Germay.
27. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1994). Semantic-oriented syntax processing. In S. Felix, C. Habel, & G. Rickheit (Eds.), Kognitive Linguistik: Repräsentationen und Prozesse. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
28. MacDonald, M.C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
29. MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994a). The lexical basis of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
30. 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. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31. Mitchell, D.C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance, Vol. XII: The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Mitchell, D.C., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing. Austin, TX: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Texas.
33. Mitchell, D.C., Cuentos, F., Corley, M., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.
34. Mitchell, D.C., Cuetos, F., & Zagar, D. (1990). Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Pritchett, B. (1988). Garden-path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539-576.
36. 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.
37. Scheepers, C., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (1994). Resolving NP-attachment ambiguities in German verb-final constructions. In First analysis, reanalysis and repair. IIG-Berichte 8/94. Albert-Ludwigs Universität, Freiburg, Germany.
38. Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Trueswell, J.C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 276-309.
39. Taraban, R., & McClelland, J.L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597-632.
40. Trueswell, J.C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585.
41. 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. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. 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.
43. 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, 528-553.