Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 281-303

  Hare, Mary ^a   McRae, Ken ^b   Elman, Jeffrey L ^c  

^a BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037295143     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00516-8     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 146-152.
2. Altmann, G. T. M. (1999). Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 124-145.
3. Argaman, V., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2002). Lexical semantics as a basis for argument structure frequency biases. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational and experimental issues (pp. 303-324). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4. Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley.
5. Boland, J. (1997). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423-484.
6. Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. Semantics: Theory and application. In C. Rameh (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics (pp. 181-206). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
7. Clark, H., & Clark, E. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
8. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257-271.
9. Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1984). Verb Frame preferences: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 307-319.
10. Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7, 195-225.
11. Elman, J. L. (1995). Language as a dynamical system. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2001). Meaning and modality: Influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 202-224.
13. Ferreira, F., & McClure, K. (1997). Parsing of garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 273-306.
14. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). 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, 555-568.
15. Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516-547.
16. Fodor, J. A., & Garret, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentence complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 289-296.
17. Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427-474.
18. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. M. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Frazier, L. (1987a). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Frazier, L. (1987b). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519-560.
21. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Meyers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contribution of verb-bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
22. Gibson, E., & Schütze, C. (1999). Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 263-279.
23. Gibson, E., Schütze, C. T., & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and complexity of linguistic structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
24. Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWTICH-BOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ICASSP-92, San Francisco.
25. Grimshaw, J. (1979). Complement structure and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 279-326.
26. Johnson, C. R., & Fillmore, C. J. (2000). The FrameNet tagset for frame-semantic and syntactic coding of predicate-argument structure. In Proceedings of the 1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of'the Association for Computational Linguistics (ANLP-NAACL 2000), April 29-May 4, 2000, Seattle WA (pp. 56-62).
27. Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 459-471.
28. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 10, 137-194.
29. Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474-516.
30. Kennison, S. M. (2001). Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 132-138.
31. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
32. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations, a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692-715.
35. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
36. MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Manning, C., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.
39. McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137-176.
40. McRae, K., Hare, M., Ferretti, T. R., & Elman, J. L. (2001). Activating events from typical agents, patients, instruments, and locations via event schemas. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Princeton, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.
42. Merlo, P. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of verb continuation frequencies for syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 435-457.
43. Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3, 235-244.
44. 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.
45. Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). Bayesian models of human sentence processing, proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 752-757). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Pickering, M., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths: An eyetracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940 961.
48. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (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.
50. Resnik, P. (1996). Selectional constraints: An information theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61, 127-159.
51. Rice, S. A. (1992). Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the cognitive Science Society, (pp. 89-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Rodd, J., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1999). Semantic competition and ambiguity disadvantage. In Proceedings of the tweny-first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Roland, D. (2002). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.
54. Roland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). How verb subcategorization frequencies are affected by corpus choice. In Proceedings of COLING/ACL (pp. 1122-1128).
55. Roland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational and experimental issues (pp. 303-324). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56. Roland, D., Jurafsky, D., Menn, L., Gahl, S., Elder, E., & Riddoch, C. (2000). Verb subcategorization frequency differences between business-news and balanced corpora: The role of verb sense. In: Proceedings of the workshop on comparing corpora, Hong Kong (pp. 28-34).
57. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499-520.
58. Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1521-1543.
59. 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, 211-272.
60. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, K. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
61. Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition, 28(2), 236-252.
62. Williams, J. N. (1992). Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 193-218.