When is schematic participant information encoded? Evidence from eye-monitoring

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 386-406

  Mauner, Gail ^a   Melinger, Alissa ^b   Koenig, Jean Pierre ^b   Bienvenue, Breton ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Argument structure; Construction grammar; Event participant; Eye monitoring; Sentence interpretation; Sentence processing; Verb

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036771915     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00009-8     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Altmann, G., Garnham, A., and Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movement in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685-712.
2. Brysbaert, M., and Mitchell, D. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing-evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 664-695.
3. Boland, J. (1997). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423-484.
4. Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M., and Garnsey, S. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413-432.
5. Bresnan, J. (1982). The passive in lexical theory. In The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 3-86). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Britt, M., Perfetti, C., Garrod, S., and Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing in Discourse: context Effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 293-314.
7. Burgess, C. (1991). The interaction of syntactic, semantic, and visual factors in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.
8. Carlson, G., and Tanenhaus, M. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic relations (pp. 263-288). New York: Academic Press.
9. Clifton, C. J., and Frazier, L. (1986). The use of syntactic information in filling gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 209-224.
10. Clifton, C., Kennison, S., and Albrecht, J. (1997). Reading the words her, his, him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276-292.
11. Crain, S., and Fodor, J. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In L. K. Karttunen, D. Dowty, and A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computations, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94-128). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Davis, A., and Koenig, J.-P. (2000). Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76, 56-91.
13. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
14. Ferreira, F., and Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
15. Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach and R.T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-90). New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
16. Foley, W., and Van Valin, R. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., and Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
18. Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amster-dam: John Benjamins.
19. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Just, M., and Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-454.
23. Koenig, J.-P. (1999). Lexical relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
24. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., and Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.
25. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Liversedge, S. (1994). Referential context, relative clauses, and syntactic parsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Dundee, Scotland.
27. Liversedge, S., Patterson, K., and Pickering, M. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55-75). Oxford, England, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
28. MacDonald, M. (1997). Lexical representations and sentence processing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 121-136.
29. Mauner, G., and Koenig, J.-P. (2000). Lexical encoding of event participant information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 110-134.
30. Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M., and Carlson, G. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 357-382.
31. McElree, B., and Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 134-157.
32. McElree, B., and Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: a time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 432-460.
33. McRae, K., Ferretti, T., and Amyote, L. (1996). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts [Special Issue]. Language and Cognitive Process, 12, 137-176.
34. Pearlmutter, N., and MacDonald, M. (1992). Plausibility effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 498-503).
35. Pickering, M., Traxler, M., and Crocker, M. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447-475.
36. Pinker, S.(1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Pollatsek, A., and Well, A. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785-794.
38. Pollard, C., and Sag, I. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics (vol. 1). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
39. Pollard, C., and Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase-structure grammar. USA: Chicago University Press.
40. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartick, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
41. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., and 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.
42. Rayner, K., and Duffy, S. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14, 191-201.
43. Rayner, K., Garrod, S., and Perfetti, C. (1992). Discourse influences during parsing are delayed. Cognition, 45, 109-139.
44. Rayner, K., Sereno, S., Morris, R., Schmauder, A. R., and Clifton, C. (1989). Eye movements an on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI21-SI50.
45. Roeper, T. (1987). Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 267-310.
46. Schmauder, A. R., and Egan, M. (1998). The influence of semantic fit on on-line sentence processing. Memory and Cognition, 26, 1304-1312.
47. Speer, S., and Clifton, C. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 26, 965-978.
48. Spivey-Knowlton, M., and Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
49. Stowe, L., Tanenhaus, M. K., and Carlson, G. (1991). Filling gaps on-line: use of lexical and semantic information in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 34, 319-340.
50. Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton, M., McRae, K., and Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In C. Umiltà and M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 589-615). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Taraban, R., and McClelland, J. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597-632.
52. Taraban, R., and McClelland, J. (1990). Parsing and comprehension: a multiple-constraint view. In D. Balota, G. Flores d’Arcais, B. Giovanni, and K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 231-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M., and Garnsey, S. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
54. Van Valin, R., and Lapolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure meaning and function. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55. Wechsler, S. (1995). The semantic basis of argument structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
56. Williams, E. (1987). Implicit arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 151-180.
57. Winer, B. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design (pp. 487-490). New York: McGraw-Hill.