The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 542-562

  Sturt, Patrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anaphor resolution; Eyetracking; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037398899     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00536-3     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Asudeh, A., Keller, F. (2002). Experimental evidence for a predication-based binding theory. In Papers from the 37th meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol. 1. Chicago Linguistics Society.
2. Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 748-769.
3. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 49, 664-695.
4. Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from english and spanish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 639-663.
5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.
6. Clifton, C., Kennison, S. M., & Albrecht, J. E. (1997). Reading the words him and her: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276-292.
7. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
8. Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27-85). Englewood, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Garrod, S. (1994). Resolving pronouns and other anaphoric devices. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 339-359). Englewood, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675-698). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11. Garrod, S., & Terras. M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526-544.
12. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325-370.
13. Hirst, W., & Brill, G. A. (1980). Contextual aspects of pronoun assignment. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 168-175.
14. Konieczny, L. (1996). Human sentence processing: A semantics-oriented approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Freiburg, Germany.
15. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.
16. Liversedge, S. P. (1994). Referential contexts, relative clauses, and syntactic parsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Dundee.
17. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
18. Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 92-103.
19. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5-19.
20. Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory & Cognition, 25, 273-285.
21. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA and Chicago, IL: CSLI and University of Chicago Press.
22. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23. Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Eye-movements in reading: Psycholinguistic studies. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 57-81). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24. Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657-720.
25. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). The role of binding theory in the on-line reference resolution of reflexives. Poster presented at the fourteenth Annual CUNY sentence-processing conference.
26. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., Tanenhaus, M. K. (2002). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements, in progress.
27. Sanford, A., Garrod, S., Lucas, A., & Henderson, R. (1983). Pronouns without explicit antecedents. Journal of Semantics, 303-318.
28. Sanford, A., & Garrod, S. C. (1988). Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and Speech, 31, 43-56.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Zribi Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language, 65, 695-727.