Changing morphological structures: The effect of sentence context on the interpretation of structurally ambiguous English trimorpheric words

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 20, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 373-394

  de Almeida, Roberto G ^a   Libben, Gary ^b  

^a Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LANGUAGE TEST; LINGUISTICS; MORPHOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SEMANTICS; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 14644405593     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960444000232     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Aristotle. (n.d.). Rhetoric, Book 3, Chapter 2. In R. Maynard (Ed.). Great Books of the Western World (Vol. 9, 1404-[39], p. 655). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. [1952].
2. Chomsky, N. (1984) Modular approaches to the study of the mind. San Diego: San Diego State University Press.
3. Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257-271.
4. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 78, 1-76.
7. Libben, G. (2003). Morphological parsing and morphological structure. In A. Egbert & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 221-239). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
8. Lucas, M. (1999). Context effect in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory and Cognition, 27, 385-398.
9. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
10. Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225-236.
11. Popescu, A. (2004). Structural ambiguity in trimorphemic English words: Morphological processing and lexical access in structurally ambiguous words presented in isolation. Unpublished MSc thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
12. Popescu, A, de Almeida, R. G., & Libben, G. (2004). What can we learn from morphological ambiguity? Manuscript in preparation.
13. Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
14. Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324-340.
15. Taft, M. (1981). Prefix stripping revisited. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 289-297.
16. Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contents. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18 427-440.
17. Tanenhaus, M. K., Dell, G. S., & Carlson, G. (1987). Context effects in lexical processing: A connectionist approach to modularity. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 83-108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.