Recency in Verb Phrase Attachment

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 574-590

  Pearlmutter, Neal J ^a   Gibson, Edward ^b  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; READING; RECALL; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS; SERIAL LEARNING;

EID: 0035291728     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.574     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Altmann, G. T. M., van Nice, K. Y., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 459-484.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353-372.
4. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
5. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.
6. Clifton, C., Jr. (1993). Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 47, 224-246.
7. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320-358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. 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.
9. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
10. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725-745.
11. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.
12. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
13. Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
19. Gibson, E., & Loomis, J. (1994). A corpus analysis of recency preference and predicate proximity. In R. A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 357-362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 262-268.
21. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
22. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Torrens, V. (1999). Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish. Memory & Cognition, 27, 603-611.
23. Gibson, E., & Schütze, C. T. (1999). Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not minor corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 263-279.
24. Gibson, E., Schütze, C. T., & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
25. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
26. Gordon, R. B. (1982). The listener resolves an ambiguity: Some principles governing the association of adverbials with clauses in English sentences. Unpublished manuscript, Midwood High School, Brooklyn, NY.
27. Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and perception. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1999). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 259-281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 293-312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31. Igoa, J. M., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. (1998). A study on late closure in Spanish: Principle-grounded vs. frequency-based accounts of attachment preferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (A), 51, 561-592.
32. Jones, C. (1991). Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose constructions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
33. Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 459-471.
34. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
35. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
36. Kennedy, A., & Murray, W. S. (1984). Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 833-849.
37. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
38. Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153-194.
39. Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93-115.
40. MacDonald, M. C. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 177-196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
42. Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 357-382.
43. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601-618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Mitchell, D. C., & Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to recent theories of cross-linguistic variation in parsing: Evidence from Dutch. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 313-335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
45. Mitchell, D. C., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Proceedings of the Current Issues in Natural Language Processing Conference (pp. 1-12). Austin, TX: University of Texas.
46. 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 (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.
47. Mitchell, D. C., & Holmes, V. M. (1985). The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 542-559.
48. Miyamoto, E. T., Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Aikawa, T., & Miyagawa, S. (1999). A U-shaped relative clause attachment preference in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 663-686.
49. Murdock, B., Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482-488.
50. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427-456.
51. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
52. Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539-576.
53. Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163.
54. Schütze, C. T., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 409-431.
55. Speer, S. R., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Dobroth, K. M. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 247-268.
56. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
57. Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 295-322.
58. Stowe, L. A. (1989). Thematic structures and sentence comprehension. In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 319-357). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
59. Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136-150.
60. Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 211-271.
61. Thornton, R., Gil, M., & MacDonald, M. C. (1998). Accounting for crosslinguistic variation: A constraint-based perspective. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 211-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
62. Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C., & Gil, M. (1999). Pragmatic constraint on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1347-1365.
63. Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585.
64. Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Towards a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
66. Tulving, E. (1968). Theoretical issues in free recall. In T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior and general behavior theory (pp. 2-36). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
67. Walter, M., & Hemforth, B. (1998, March). Attachment preferences of extraposed and adjacent relative clauses following three-site NPs in German. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, New Brunswick, NJ.
68. Warner, J., & Glass, A. L. (1987). Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714-738.
69. Wijnen, F. (1998). Dutch relative clause attachment in two- and three-site contexts. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, New Brunswick, NJ.
70. Wijnen, F. (1999). Prosodic phrasing and relative clause attachment in a three-site context. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, New York, NY.