Processing relative clauses in Chinese

Cognition

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 3-27

  Hsiao, Franny ^a   Gibson, Edward ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Chinese; Processing; Relative clauses

Indexed keywords

CONSTRAINT THEORY; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SYNTACTICS;

CLAUSE STRUCTURES;

SEMANTICS;

ARTICLE; CHINESE; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXTRACTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING;

EID: 0242302374     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00124-0     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bever, T. G., (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J.R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York, Wiley, pp. 279-362.
2. Chomsky N., Miller G.A. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Luce R.D., Bush R.R., Galanter E. Handbook of mathematical psychology. 2:1963;269-321 Wiley, New York.
3. Christiansen M.H., Chater N. Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science. 23:1999;157-205.
4. Desmet, T., & Gibson, E (in press). Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language.
5. Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language. 67:1991;547-619.
6. Ferreira F., Clifton C. Jr. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 25:1986;348-368.
7. Fodor J.D., Ferreira F. Reanalysis in sentence processing. 1998;Kluwer, Dordrecht.
8. Ford M. A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22:1983;203-218.
9. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
10. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition. 69:1998;1-76.
11. Gibson E. The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Miyashita Y., Marantz A., O'Neil W. Image, language, brain. 2000;95-126 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. Gibson E., Pearlmutter N. Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2:1998;262-268.
13. Gibson E., Schutze C. Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language. 40:1999;263-279.
14. Grodner, D., Gibson, E., Argaman, V., & Babyonyshev, M (in press). Against repair-based reanalysis in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
15. 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.
16. Hakes B., Evans J., Brannon L. Understanding sentences with relative clauses. Memory and Cognition. 4:1976;283-296.
17. Hale, J (in press). The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
18. He Y. An introduction to government-binding theory in Chinese syntax. 1996;Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY.
19. Holmes V.M., O'Regan J.K. Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 20:1981;417-430.
20. Hsiao, F (2003). The syntax and processing of relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Available through MIT working papers in linguistics (MITWPL).
21. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Wooley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processing in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
22. Kayne R. The antisymmetry of syntax. 1994;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
23. Keenan E. Relative clauses. Shopen T. Language typology and syntactic description. 2:1985;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Keenan E.L., Comrie B. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry. 8:1977;63-99.
25. Keenan E.L., Hawkins S. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. Keenan E. Universal grammar: 15 essays. 1987;60-85 Routledge, London.
26. King J., Just M.A. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language. 30:1991;580-602.
27. Lewis R. A theory of grammatical but unacceptable embeddings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 25:1996;93-116.
28. Li C., Thompson S. Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. 1981;University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
29. MacDonald M.C. Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: three puzzles and a moral. MacWhinney B. The emergence of language. 1999;Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
30. MacDonald M.C., Christiansen M. Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1999). Psychological Review. 109:2002;35-54.
31. MacWhinney B. Starting points. Language. 53:1977;152-168.
32. MacWhinney B. Basic syntactic processes. Kuczaj S. Syntax and semantics. Language acquisition. 1:1982;Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
33. MacWhinney B., Pleh C. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition. 29:1988;95-141.
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. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 24:1995;469-488.
35. Pearlmutter, N. J., & Gibson, E. (2001). Recency in verb phrase attachment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 574-590.
36. 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.
37. Sturt P., Pickering M., Crocker M. Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 40:1999;136-150.
38. Tabor W., Juliano C., Tanenhaus M.K. Parsing in a dynamical system: an attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language & Cognitive Processes. 12:1997;211-272.
39. Tanenhaus M.K., Trueswell J.C. Sentence comprehension. Miller J., Eimas P. Speech, language, and communication. 1995;Academic Press, New York.
40. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Garnsey S.M. Semantic influences on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language. 33:1994;285-318.
41. Wanner E., Maratsos M. An ATN approach in comprehension. Halle M., Bresnan J., Miller G. Linguistic theory and psychological reality. 1978;119-161 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
42. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.
43. Waters G.S., Caplan D., Hildebrandt N. Working memory and written sentence comprehension. Coltheart M. The psychology of reading. Attention and performance. 12:1987;531-555 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.