Grammatical Search and Reanalysis

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 308-336

  Schneider, David ^a   Phillips, Colin ^b  

^a CYCORP INC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Monotonic parsing; Parsing; Reanalysis; Subcategorization

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035742278     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2777     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abney S. P. Licensing and parsing. Proceedings of NELS 17. 1987;GLSA, Amherst.
2. Abney S. P. A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 18:1989;129-144.
3. Altmann G. T. M., van Nice K. Y., Garnham A., Henstra J.-A. Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language. 38:1998;459-484.
4. Behagel O. Deutsche Syntax: Eine Geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. IV, Wortstellung, Periodenbau. 1932;Carl Winters, Heidelberg.
5. Crocker M. Computational psycholinguistics. 1996;Kluwer, Dordrecht.
6. Ferreira F., Clifton C. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 25:1986;348-368.
7. Ferreira F., Henderson M. Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 16:1990;555-568.
8. Fodor J., Ferreira F. Reanalysis in sentence processing. 1998;Kluwer, Dordrecht.
9. Fodor J. D., Frazier L. Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition. 8:1980;417-459.
10. Frazier L. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. 1978;University of Connecticut.
11. Frazier L. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. Coltheart M. Attention and Performance XII. 1987;559-587 Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
12. 0. Yearbook of Morphology. 3:1990;87-105.
13. Frazier L., Clifton C. Jr. Sentence reanalysis, and visibility. Fodor, Ferreira. Reanalysis in sentence processing. 1998;143-176 Kluwer, Dordrecht.
14. Frazier L., Rayner K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye-movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology. 14:1982;178-210.
15. Garnsey S. M., Pearlmutter N. J., Myers E., Lotocky M. A. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language. 37:1997;58-93.
16. Gibson E. A. F. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. 1991;Carnegie-Mellon University.
17. Gibson E. A. F. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition. 68:1998;1-76.
18. Gibson E. A. F., Pearlmutter N., Canseco-González E., Hickok G. Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition. 59:1996;23-59.
19. Gorrell P. Syntax and parsing. 1995;Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
20. Hawkins J. A performance theory of order and constituency. 1994;Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
21. Juliano C., Tanenhaus M. K. A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 23:1994;459-471.
22. Jurafsky D. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science. 20:1996;137-194.
23. Just M., Carpenter P., Woolley J. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 111:1982;228-238.
24. Kennedy A., Murray W. S., Jennings F., Reid C. Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes. 4:1989;21-49.
25. Kimball J. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition. 2:1973;15-47.
26. Marcus, M, Hindle, D, &, Fleck, M. (1983), D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
27. MacDonald M., Just M. A., Carpenter P. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology. 24:1992;56-98.
28. Mitchell D. C., Holmes V. M. The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language. 24:1985;542-559.
29. Pearlmutter N., MacDonald M. C. Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 34:1995;521-542.
30. Phillips C., Gibson E. A. F. On the strength of the local attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 26:1997;323-346.
31. Pritchett B. L. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language. 64:1988;539-576.
32. Pritchett B. L. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. 1992;Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
33. Rayner K., Frazier L. Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 39A:1987;657-673.
34. Schneider D. Parsing and incrementality. 1999;University of Delaware.
35. Stevenson S. Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 23:1994a;295-322.
36. Stevenson S. A competitive attachment model for resolving syntactic ambiguities in natural language parsing. 1994b;University of Maryland, College Park.
37. Stevenson S. Parsing as incremental restructuring. Fodor J., Ferreira F. Reanalysis in sentence processing. 1998;3273-3363 Kluwer, Dordrecht.
38. Sturt P., Crocker M. Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes. 11:1996;449-494.
39. Sturt P., Pickering M., Crocker M. Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 40:1999;136-150.
40. Sturt P., Pickering M., Scheepers C., Crocker M. The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort? Journal of Memory and Language. 2001.
41. Tabor W., Juliano C., Tanenhaus M. K. Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes. 12:1997;211-272.
42. Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M. K. Tense, temporal context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes. 6:1991;303-338.
43. Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M. K., Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating lexical effects from garden paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 19:1993;528-553.
44. Vosse T., Kempen G. Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition. 75:2000;105-143.
45. Wanner E. The ATN and the sausage machine: Which one is baloney? Cognition. 8:1980;209-225.
46. Weinberg A. Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 22:1993;339-364.