Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 353-374

  Desmet, Timothy ^a   Gibson, Edward ^b  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Corpus frequency; Eye movements; Noun phrase conjunction; Syntactic ambiguity resolution

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141426662     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00025-1     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2001). Understanding the constraints on syntactic generation: Lexical bias and discourse congruency effects on eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 391-411.
2. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
3. Carroll, P. J., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1986). Constraints on semantic priming in reading: A fixation time analysis. Memory & Cognition, 14, 509-522.
4. Chang, F. R. (1980). Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference. Memory & Cognition, 8, 58-64.
5. Corbett, A. T., & Chang, F. R. (1983). Pronoun disambiguation-accessing potential antecedents. Memory & Cognition, 11, 283-294.
6. Corley, M. M. B. (1996). The role of statistics in human sentence processing. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Exeter.
7. Crain, S., Ni, W., Shankweiler, D. P., Conway, L., & Braze, D. (1996). Meaning, memory, and modularity. Proceedings of the NELS26 Sentence Processing Workshop, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 9, pp. 27-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
8. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
9. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., & Corley, M. M. B. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sabastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & De Baecke, C. (2002a). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 879-896.
11. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2002b). The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch. Memory & Cognition, 30, 150-157.
12. Ehrlich, K., & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: Eye movements and immediacy of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 75-87.
13. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
14. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). 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, 555-568.
15. 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.
16. Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627-635.
17. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
18. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
19. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99-156.
20. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants - the advantage of 1st mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699-717.
21. Gibson, E., & Schütze, C. T. (1996, March). The relationship between the frequency and the perceived complexity of conjunction attachments: On-line evidence. Poster presented at the 9th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, USA.
22. Gibson, E., & Schütze, C. T. (1999). Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 263-279.
23. Gibson, E., Schütze, C. T., & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
24. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronoun, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
25. Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2002, March). Where pronouns and relative clauses differ: Information structure and binding preferences. Paper presented at the 15th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, USA.
26. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 259-281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417-429.
28. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: Fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 201-221.
29. Howes, D. H., & Solomon, R. L. (1951). Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 401-410.
30. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
31. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
32. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 228-238.
33. Kennedy, A. (1983). On looking into space. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye Movements in Reading: Perceptual and Language Processes (pp. 237-251). New York: Academic Press.
34. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
35. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
36. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Pernn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.
37. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.
38. Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 375-409). New York: Academic Press.
39. Mitchell, D. C., & Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to recent theories of crosslinguistic variation in parsing: Evidence from Dutch. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 313-335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
40. Mitchell, D. C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (2000). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of Construal Theory. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 493-516). Oxford: Elsevier.
41. Mitchell, D. C., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing. University of Texas, Austin: Centre for Cognitive Science.
42. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.
43. Mitchell, D. C., & Holmes, V. (1985). The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 542-559.
44. Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 92-103.
45. Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569-587.
46. Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739-773.
47. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427-456.
48. Preston, K. A. (1935). The speed of word recognition and its relation to reading ability. Journal of General Psychology, 13, 199-203.
49. Rayner, K. (1977). Visual attention in reading: Eye movements reflect cognitive processes. Memory & Cognition, 4, 443-448.
50. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
51. Rayner, K., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading and visual search: Effects of word frequency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 238-244.
52. Rohde, D. L. T. (2002). A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
53. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 487-494.
54. Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 569-588.
55. Sevald, C. A., & Garnsey, S. M. (1995). Safe syntax: Encapsulation of number-marking information in sentence comprehension. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson.
56. Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 211-272.
57. 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.
58. 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.