Thematic Monotonicity

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 297-322

  Sturt, Patrick ^a   Crocker, Matthew W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039280788     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1025076608204     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bader, M. (1996). On reanalysis: Evidence from German. Unpublished manuscript, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
2. Branigan, H., Sturt, P., & Matsumoto-Sturt, Y. (1996, September). Left branching attachment and thematic domains. Poster presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference, Torino, Italy.
3. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Crocker, M. W. (1995). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
5. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 72-105.
6. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189-206.
7. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1303-1321.
8. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725-745.
9. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 405-432.
10. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
11. Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the HPSM? In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Ed.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303-331). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
13. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
14. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
15. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, Jr, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
16. Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1995, December). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference, Edinburgh.
18. Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1997). Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 247-254.
19. Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 129-136). Cambridge, MA.
21. Mitchell, D. C., Corley, M. M. B., & Gamham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 69-88.
22. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA and Chicago: CSLI and University of Chicago Press.
23. Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539-576.
24. Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). 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, 358-374.
26. Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (in press). Generalized monotonicity for reanalysis models. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
27. Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: a cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449-494.
28. Weinberg, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes East. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 339-364.