A new look at the syntax-discourse interface: The use of binding principles in sentence processing

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 125-139

  Sturt, Patrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Binding theory; Discourse; Reference; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LINGUISTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0037832149     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022444207127     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

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. 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.
4. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
5. 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.
6. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325-370.
7. Harris, T., Wexler, K., & Holcomb, P. (2000). An ERP investigation of binding and co-reference. Brain and Language, 75, 313-346.
8. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora discourse and empathy. Chicago: IL: The University of Chicago Press.
9. Mitchell, D. C., Corley, M. M. B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 69-88.
10. Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory and Cognition, 25, 273-285.
11. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA. and Chicago, IL: CSLI and University of Chicago Press.
12. Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657-720.
13. 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, Philadelphia.
14. 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.
15. Sturt, P. (in press). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language.
16. Zribi Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language, 65, 695-727.