The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 879-896

  Desmet, Timothy ^a   Brysbaert, Marc ^a   De Baecke, Constantijn ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH;

HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH; VOCABULARY;

EID: 0036632679     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980143000604     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
2. Baccino, T., De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (2000). Cross-linguistic studies of the Late Closure Strategy: French and Italian. In M. De Vincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 89-118). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D.C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
4. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D.C. (2000). The failure to use gender information in parsing: A comment on van Berkum, Brown, and Hagoort (1999). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 453-466.
5. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353-372.
6. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking: evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, 27, 826-833.
7. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D.R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A.M.N. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. 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.
10. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D.C., & Corley, M.M.B. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J.E. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch. Memory and Cognition.
12. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the Late Closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistics 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, 1305-1321.
14. Ehrlich, K., Fernandez, E., Fodor, J.D., Stenshoel, E., & Vinereanu, M. (1999, March). Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, USA.
15. Fernandez, E.M. (1998). Language dependency in parsing: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual processing. Psychalogica Belgica, 38, 197-230.
16. Fodor, J.D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.
17. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
18. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559-585). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
19. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Boston: MIT Press.
20. Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (2000). Resolving syntactic ambiguities: Cross-linguistic differences? In M. De Vincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 119-148). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N.J., Canseco-Gonzales, 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 and Cognition, 27, 603-611.
23. Gibson, E., & Schütze, C. T. (1996, March). The relationship between the frequency and the perceived complexity of conjunction attachments: On-line evidence. Poster presented at the 9th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, USA.
24. Gibson, E., & Schütze, C.T. (1999). Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 263-279.
25. Gibson, E., Schütze, CT., & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
26. Gilbov, E., Sopena, J.M., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preference in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
27. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: Two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 259-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Henstra, J. (1996, September). Relative clause attachment in English: Eye-tracking versus self-paced reading. Poster presented at AMLaP-96, Turino, Italy.
29. Igoa, J.M., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. (1998). A study on late closure in Spanish: Principle-grounded versus frequency-based accounts of attachment preferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 561-592.
30. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15-17.
31. MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
32. Mitchell, D.C., & Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to recent theories of crosslinguistic variation in parsing: Evidence from Dutch. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 313-335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33. Mitchell, D.C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (2000). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of Construal Theory. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 493-516). Oxford: Elsevier.
34. Mitchell, D.C., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing. Austin: University of Texas, Centre for Cognitive Science.
35. 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.
36. Mitchell, D.C., Cuetos, F., & Zagar, D. (1990). Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? In D. Balota, G.B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 285-302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
37. Miyamoto, E.T. (1998). Relative clause processing in Brazilian Portuguese and Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
38. Pynte, J., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1996, September). Evidence for early-closure attachments on first-pass reading times in French: A replication. Poster presented at AMLaP-96, Turino, Italy.
39. Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
40. 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.
41. Traxler, M.J., Pickering, M.J., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
42. Wijnen, F. (1998, March). Dutch Relative Clause Attachment in Two-ami Three-site Contexts. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
43. Zagar, D., Pynte, J., & Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 421-438.