The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension

Cognition

Volumn 95, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 275-296

  Grodner, Daniel ^a   Gibson, Edward ^b   Watson, Duane ^c  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Discourse; Modularity; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; TASK PERFORMANCE; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 15444363400     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.007     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. G.T.M. Altmann, A. Garnham, and Y. Dennis Avoiding the garden-path: Eye movements in context Journal of Memory and Language 31 1992 685 712
2. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.
3. G.T.M. Altmann, and M. Steedman Interaction with context during human sentence processing Cognition 30 1988 191 238
4. M.A. Britt The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution Journal of Memory and Language 4 1994 297 324
5. Chambers, C., Tanenhaus, M., & Magnuson, J. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
6. C. Clifton, and F. Ferreira Ambiguity in context Language and Cognitive Processes 4 SI 1989 77 103
7. S. Crain, and M. Steedman On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser D. Dowty L. Karttunnen A. Zwicky Natural language parsing 1985 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
8. F. Ferreira, and C. Clifton Jr The independence of syntactic processing Journal of Memory and Language 25 1986 348 368
9. J.A. Fodor Modularity of mind 1983 MIT Press Cambridge, MA
10. L. Frazier On sentence interpretation 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston, MA
11. S. Garrod, and A.J. Sanford Interpreting anaphoric relations: the interpretation of semantic information while reading Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 16 1977 77 90
12. S. Garrod, and A.J. Sanford The mental representation of discourse in a focused memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun-phrases Journal of Semantics 1 1982 21 41
13. S. Garrod, and A.J. Sanford Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding M.A. Gernsbacher Handbook of psycholinguistics 1994 Academic Press San Diego, CA
14. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
15. E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: The locality of syntactic dependencies Cognition 68 1998 1 76
16. Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and perception. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. M.A.K. Halliday, and R. Hasan Cohesion in English 1976 Longmans London
18. S.E. Haviland, and H.H. Clark What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 13 1974 512 521
19. W. Marslen-Wilson, and L.K. Tyler Against modularity J.L. Garfield Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding 1987 MIT Press Cambridge, MA
20. G.L. Murphy Establishing and accessing referents in discourse Memory and Cognition 12 5 1984 489 497
21. Ni, W., & Crain, S. (1989). How to resolve structural ambiguities. Proceedings from the 20th north east linguistic society conference.
22. W. Ni, S. Crain, and D. Shankweiler Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities Language and Cognitive Processes 11 3 1996 283 334
23. B. Partee Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 1973 509 534
24. Pritchett, B.L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539-576.
25. J.C. Sedivy Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities Journal of Memory and Language 46 2 2002 341 370
26. Sedivy, J. C. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of Informativity Expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 3-23.
27. Sells, P. (1985). Restrictive and non-restrictive modification. Report #CSLI-85-28, Stanford University.
28. M.J. Spivey-Knowlton, and J.C. Sedivy Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints Cognition 55 1995 227 267
29. M. Spivey-Knowlton, and M. Tanenhaus Referential context and syntactic ambiguity resolution C. Clifton L. Frazier K. Rayner Perspectives on sentence processing 1994 Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ
30. M. Steedman, and G. Altmann Ambiguity in context: A reply Language and Cognitive Processes 4 SI 1989 211 234
31. M. Tanenhaus, M. Spivey-Knowlton, K. Eberhard, and J. Sedivy Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension Science 268 1995 1632 1634
32. Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.