Intra-sentential context effects on the interpretation of logical metonymy

Cognitive Science

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 649-668

  Lapata, Mirella ^a   Keller, Frank ^b   Scheepers, Christoph ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian modeling; Coercion; Context; Corpus based modeling; Generative lexicon; Logical metonymy; Sentence completion

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037633264     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00035-1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Bach E. The algebra of events Linguistics and Philosophy 9 1986 5-16
3. Briscoe, T., Copestake, A., & Boguraev, B. (1990). Enjoy the paper: Lexical semantics via lexicology. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, pp. 42-47
4. Carroll, G., & Rooth, M. (1998). Valence induction with a head-lexicalized PCFG. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Granada, pp. 36-45.
5. Chater, N., Crocker, M., & Pickering, M. (1998). The rational analysis of inquiry: The case for parsing. In: N. Chater, M. Oaksford (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 441-468). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (Eds.). (1998). Rational models of cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Copestake, A. (2001). The semi-generative lexicon: Limits on lexical productivity. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, Geneva.
9. Copestake A.Briscoe E.J. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension Journal of Semantics 12 (1) 1995 15-67
10. Corley M.Scheepers C.Syntactic priming in English sentence production: Categorical and latency evidence from an Internet-based study Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9 (1) 2002 126 131
11. Godard, D., & Jayez, J. (1993). Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomena. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus, OH, pp. 168-177.
12. Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
13. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Jurafsky D. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation Cognitive Science 20 1996 137-194
15. Keller F. Alexopoulou T. Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of information structure Cognition 79 (3) 2001 301-372
16. Keller, F., & Asudeh, A. (2001). Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs. pragmatic factors. In: J. D. Moore, K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 483-488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Keller, F., Corley, M., Corley, S., Konieczny, L., & Todirascu, A. (1998). WebExp: A Java toolbox for web-based psychological experiments. Technical Report HCRC/TR-99, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh
18. Lapata, M., & Lascarides, A. (2003). A Probabilistic Account of Logical Metonymy. Computational Linguistics, 29(2), 263-317.
19. Lascarides A. Copestake A. Pragmatics and word meaning Journal of Linguistics 34 (2) 1998 387-414
20. McElree B. Traxler M.J. Pickering M.J. Seely R.E. Jackendoff R. Reading time evidence for enriched composition Cognition 78 2001 B17-B25
21. Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). A Bayesian model predicts human parse preference and reading time in sentence processing. In: T. G. Dietterich, S. Becker, & Z. Ghahramani (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 14, pp. 59-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
23. Oaksford M. Chater N. Rational explanation of the selection task Psychological Review 103 1996 381-391
24. Partee, B. (1992). Syntactic categories and semantic type. In: M. Rosner, R. Johnson (Eds.), Computational linguistics and formal semantics (pp. 97-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Pustejovsky J. The generative lexicon Computational Linguistics 17 (4) 1991 409-441
26. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Pustejovsky J. Bouillon P. Logical polysemy and aspectual coercion Journal of Semantics 12 1995 133-162
28. Schooler L.J. Anderson J.R. The role of process in the rational analysis of memory Cognitive Psychology 32 1997 219-250
29. Schulte im Walde, S. (2002). A subcategorisation lexicon for German verbs induced from a lexicalised PCFG. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria.
30. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31. Tenenbaum, J. B. (1999). Bayesian modeling of human concept learning. In: M. S. Kearns, D. A. Cohn, & S. A. Solla, (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 11, pp. 59-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Traxler M.J. Pickering M.J. McElree B. Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading Journal of Memory and Language 47 2002 530-547
33. Vendler, Z. (1968). Adjectives and nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
34. Verspoor, C. M. (1997). Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.