Adjunct Attachment Is Not a Form of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 558-592

  Traxler, Matthew J ^a   Pickering, Martin J ^a   Clifton Jr , Charles ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037652565     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2600     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Altmann G. T. M., Garnham A., Dennis Y. I. L. Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language. 31:1992;685-712.
2. Altmann G. T. M., Steedman M. J. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition. 30:1988;191-238.
3. Baayen, R. H. Piepenbrock, R. van Rijn, H. 1993, The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM), Philadelphia, PA, Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
4. Boland J. E., Tanenhaus M. K., Garnsey S. M., Carlson G. N. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language. 34:1995;774-806.
5. Branigan, H. P. Pickering, M. J. Stewart, A. J. 1997, Syntactic priming of ambiguous sentences in language comprehension.
6. Britt M. A. The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language. 33:1994;251-283.
7. Britt M. A., Perfetti C. A., Garrod S. C., Rayner K. Parsing in context: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language. 31:1992;293-314.
8. Brysbaert M., Mitchell D. C. Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 49:1996;664-695.
9. Carreiras M., Clifton C. Jr. Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech. 36:1993;353-372.
10. Carreiras, M. Clifton, C. Jr. Interpreting relative clauses in Spanish and English: Evidence from eye-tracking.
11. Clifton, C. Jr. 1988, Restrictions on late closure: Appearance and reality.
12. Clifton C. Jr. Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. 47:1993;222-246.
13. Clifton C. Jr., Kennison S. M., Albrecht J. E. Reading the words her, his, him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory & Language. 36:1997;276-292.
14. Cohen J., Cohen P. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1975;Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
15. Cuetos F., Mitchell D. C. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition. 30:1988;73-105.
16. Cuetos F., Mitchell D. C., Corley M. M. B. Parsing in different languages. Language processing in spanish. 1996;Erlbaum, Hillsdale. p. 145-187.
17. De Vincenzi M., Job R. Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy: Evidences from Italian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 22:1993;189-206.
18. De Vincenzi M., Job R. An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 21:1995;1-19.
19. Duffy S. A., Morris R. K., Rayner K. Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language. 27:1988;429-446.
20. Ferreira F., Clifton C. Jr. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 25:1986;348-368.
21. Ferreira F., Henderson J. 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. 16:1990;555-568.
22. Frazier, L. 1979, On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies.
23. Frazier L. Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 24:1995;437-468.
24. Frazier L., Clifton C. Jr. Construal. 1996;MIT Press, Cambridge.
25. Frazier L., Rayner K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology. 14:1982;178-210.
26. Frazier L., Rayner K. Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language. 26:1987;505-526.
27. Gilboy E. J., Sopena M., Clifton C. Jr., Frazier L. Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition. 54:1995;131-167.
28. Hemforth, B. Konieczny, L. Scheepers, C. Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment, M. W. CrockerM. J. PickeringClifton, C. Jr. Architectures and mechanisms for language processing.
29. MacDonald M. C. Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes. 9:1994;157-202.
30. MacDonald M. C., Just M. A., Carpenter P. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology. 24:1992;56-98.
31. MacDonald M. C., Pearlmutter N. J., Seidenberg M. S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review. 101:1994;676-703.
32. McRae K., Spivey-Knowlton M. J., Tanenhaus M. K. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 38:1998;283-312.
33. Mitchell D. C. Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. Coltheart M. Attention and performance XII. 1987;601-618 Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
34. Mitchell D. C., Cuetos F., Corley M. M. B., Brysbaert M. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. The Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 24:1995;469-488.
35. Mitchell D. C., Holmes V. I. The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language. 24:1985;542-559.
36. Pearlmutter N. J., MacDonald M. C. Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 34:1994;521-542.
37. Pickering M. J., Traxler M. J. Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 24:1998;940-961.
38. Rayner K., Carlson M., Frazier L. 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. 22:1983;358-374.
39. Rayner K., Duffy S. A. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition. 14:1986;191-201.
40. Rayner K., Garrod S. C., Perfetti C. A. Discourse influences in parsing are delayed. Cognition. 45:1992;109-139.
41. Rayner K., Pollatsek A. The psychology of reading. 1989;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
42. Rayner K., Sereno S., Morris R., Schmauder R., Clifton C. Jr. Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes. 4:1989;21-50.
43. Romaine S. Socio-historical Linguistics. 1982;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
44. Spivey-Knowlton M., Sedivy J. C. Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition. 55:1995;227-267.
45. Tanenhaus, M. K. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. Hanna, J. E. Modeling thematic and discourse context effects within a multiple constraints framework: Implications for the architecture of the language comprehension system, M. W. CrockerM. J. PickeringClifton, C. Jr. Architectures and mechanisms for language processing, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.
46. Taraban R., McClelland J. R. Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influence of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language. 27:1988;597-632.
47. Traxler M. J., Bybee M. D., Pickering M. J. Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 50:1997;481-497.
48. Traxler M. J., Pickering M. J. Case marking in the parsing of complement sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 49:1996a;991-1004.
49. Traxler M. J., Pickering M. J. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language. 35:1996b;454-475.
50. Trueswell J. C. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 35:1996;566-585.
51. Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M., Garnsey S. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language. 33:1994;285-318.
52. Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M. K., Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 19:1993;528-553.
53. Waters G. S., Caplan D. The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review. 103:1996;761-772.
54. Zagar D., Pynte J., Rativeau S. Evidence for early-closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 50:1997;421-438.