The influence of only on syntactic processing of "long" relative clause sentences

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 225-240

  Liversedge, Simon P ^a   Paterson, Kevin B ^b   Clayes, Emma L ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DERBY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME; READING; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME; READING; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0036358064     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980143000253     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Altmann, G.T.M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
2. Altmann, G.T.M., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J.A. (1992). Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 20, 209-216.
3. Altmann, G.T.M., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye-movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685-712.
4. Bever, T.G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J.R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognitive development of language. New York: John Wiley.
5. 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.
6. Britt, M.A., Perfetti, C.A., Garrod, S., & Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing in discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 11, 293-314.
7. Clifton, C., Bock, J., & Rado, J. (2000). Effects of the focus particle only and intrinsic contrast on comprehension of reduced relative causes. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as perceptual process. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
8. Clifton, C., Kennison, S., & Albrecht, J. (1997). Reading the words her, his, and him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276-292.
9. Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (1989). Ambiguity in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI77-SI104.
10. Grain, 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. Kartunnen, & A.M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 75-87.
12. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Sentence parsing strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut and Indiana University Linguistics Club, USA.
13. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the study of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
14. Liversedge, S.P., Paterson, K.B., & Pickering, M.J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
15. Liversedge, S.P., Pickering, M.J., Branigan, H.P., & Van Gompel, R.P.G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and in context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 461-475.
16. MacDonald, M.C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
17. MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994a). 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.
18. MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994b). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-701.
19. Mitchell, D.C., Corley, M.B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 18, 69-88.
20. Murray, W.S., & Liversedge, S.P. (1994). Referential context effects on syntactic & processing. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: The contribution of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283-334.
22. Paterson, K.B., Liversedge, S.P., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of "short" relative clause sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 717-737.
23. Pearlmutter, N.J., & MacDonald, M.C. (1992). Plausibility and syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 493-503). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. Pickering, M.J., Traxler, M.J., & Crocker, M.W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447-475.
25. Rayner, K., Garrod, S., & Perfetti, C.A. (1992). Discourse influences during parsing are delayed. Cognition, 45, 109-139.
26. Spivey-Knowlton, M.L., & Sedivy, J. (1994). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
27. Spivey-Knowlton, M.L., Trueswell, J.C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1993). Context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 47, 276-309.
28. 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. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 589-616). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. 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.
30. Traxler, M.J., & Pickering, M.J. (1996). Case marking in the parsing of complement sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 991-1004.
31. Trueswell, J.C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1991). Tense, temporal context and syntactic ambiguity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 303-338.
32. 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.
33. 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: Language, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
34. Van Gompel, R.P.G., Pickering, M.J., & Traxler, M.J. (2000). Syntactic ambiguity resolution is not a form of lexical ambiguitv resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, J., & Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.