Against repair-based reanalysis in sentence comprehension

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 141-166

  Grodner, Daniel ^a   Gibson, Edward ^a   Argaman, Vered ^b   Babyonyshev, Maria ^c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Parsing; Prosodic phrasing; Reanalysis; Repair; Sentence comprehension; Syntactic ambiguity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; READING; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

COGNITION; HUMANS; READING; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0037832148     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022496223965     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (70)

1. Altmann, G. T. M., van Nice, K. Y., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. A. (1998). Late closure in context, Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685-712.
2. Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1-56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
3. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279-362). New York: Wiley.
4. Clifton, C., Jr., & Ferreira, F. (1989). Ambiguity in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI77-SI103.
5. Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J. M. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Fernández, E. M., & Bradley, D. (1999). Length effects in the attachment of relative clauses in English. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
7. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
8. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). The use of verb information in syntactic parsing: A comparison of evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 555-568.
9. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 461-476.
10. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1998). Syntactic reanalysis, thematic processing and sentence comprehension. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 73-100), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
11. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-317.
12. Fodor, J. D. (2000). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. Talk given at the 32nd Northeastern Linguistics Conference, Washington, DC.
13. Fodor, J. D., & Ferreira, F. (1998). Reanalysis in sentence processing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
14. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden-paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407-434.
15. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101-142), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
16. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 727-796). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies, Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut. Storrs, CT.
18. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559-585). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1996). Construal, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1998). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101-142), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
21. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements and the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences, Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
22. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 505-526.
23. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, B. (1997). The relative contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
24. Gee, J. P., & Grosjean, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 411-458.
25. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
26. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
27. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95-126), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Gibson, E., Babyonyshev, M., & Kaan, E. (1998). Generalized incremental processing within a parallel processing framework. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New Brunswick, NJ.
29. Gibson, E., & Nakatani, K. (1998). The lexical and locality basis for linguistic complexity. Manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
30. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (2000). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 231-240.
31. Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1997). Processing load judgements in English: Evidence for the Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory of syntactic complexity. Manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
32. Gorrell, P. G. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2000). Locality effects on sentence processing. Talk presented at the 13th CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of California, San Diego, CA.
34. Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka and N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 9-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Joshi, A. K. (1985). How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions: Tree adjoining grammars. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 206-250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36. Joshi, A. K., Levy, L., & Takahashi, M. (1975). Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of the Computer and System Sciences, 10, 136-163.
37. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
38. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
39. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., & Scheepers, C. (1997). Head position and clause boundary effects in reanalysis. Poster presented at the 10th CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Santa Monica, CA, March, 1997.
40. Lewis, R. (1993). An architecturally-based theory of human sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
41. Lewis, R. (1996). A theory of grammatical but unacceptable embeddings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93-116.
42. Lewis, R. (1998). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden path. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 247-288), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
43. Lewis, R. (2000). Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: Empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 241-248.
44. MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692-715.
45. MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
46. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.
47. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature, 244, 522-523.
48. Nagel, H. N., Shapiro, L. P., Tuller, B., & Nawy, R. (1996). Prosodic influences on the resolution of temporary ambiguity druing on-line sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 319-344.
49. Pearlmutter, N. J., & Gibson, E. A. F. (2001). Recency in verb phrase attachment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 574-590.
50. Pearlmutter, N. J., & Mendelsohn, A. (1999). Serial versus parallel sentence processing. Manuscript Northeastern University.
51. Pritchett, B. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539-576.
52. Pritchett, B. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
53. Stabler, E. P. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structures. In C. Clifton Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Steedman, M. (1989). Grammar, interpretation and processing from the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 463-504). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 295-322.
56. Stevenson, S. (1998). Parsing as incremental restructuring. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 327-364), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
57. Sturt, P., & Crocker M. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachments and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449-494.
58. Sturt, P., & Crocker M. (1997). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 297-322.
59. Sturt, P., & Crocker M. (1998). Generalized monotonicity for reanalysis models. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 365-400), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
60. Sturt, P., Pickering, M., & Crocker M. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136-150.
61. Suh, S. (1994). The Syntax of Korean and its implications for parsing theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
62. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
63. Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585.
64. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
65. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (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.
66. Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 683-692.
67. Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 225-258.
68. Watson, D. G. (2002) Intonational phrasing in language production and comprehension. Unpublished doctoral disseration. MIT. Cambridge, MA.
69. Weinberg, A. (1995). Licensing constraints and the theory of grammar. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 235-257.
70. Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a cognitive process. Vol. I: Syntax. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.