Interface problems: Structural constraints on interpretation?

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 201-231

  Frazier, Lyn ^a   Clifton, Charles ^a   Rayner, Keith ^a   Deevy, Patricia ^b   Koh, Sungryong ^c   Bader, Markus ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences ^*  (United States)

^c Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^d UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cardinals; Hypothesis; Interface; Language processing; Mapping; Syntax semantics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; SEMANTICS;

EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; SEMANTICS;

EID: 20644446882     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10936-005-3638-1     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
2. Anisfeld, M., & Kienbort, I. (1973). On the functions of structural paraphrase: The view from the passive voice. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 117-126.
3. Beckman, J. (1996). Double objects, definiteness, and extraction: A processing perspective. In M. W. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), Linguistics in the Laboratory. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
4. Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47-68.
5. Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 239-282.
6. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and Language: New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
7. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse Comprehension and Production (pp 1-40). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishers.
8. Clifton, C., Jr., & Ferreira, F. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Some experimental results. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance (pp. 635-654). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
9. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing (pp. 320-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Diesing, M. (1990). The syntactic Roots of semantic partition. University of Massachusetts Doctoral Discussion. Amherst, Massachusetts.
11. Diesing, M. (1992). Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 353-380.
12. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
13. Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427-474.
14. Frazier, L. (1999). On Sentence Interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
15. Frazier, L. (2000). On interpretation: Minimal lowering. In M. W. Crocker, M. Pickering, and C. Clifton, Jr (Eds)., Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing (pp. 303-323). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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. Frey, W. (2002). Notes on some proposing constructions in German and English. Presented at the Workshop on Language Specific Discourse-Linking, Berlin, October 13, 2002.
19. Frey, W., & Pittner, K. (1998). Zur Positionierung von Adverbialen. Linguistische Berichte, 176, 489-534.
20. Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1985). On-line resolution of anaphoric pronouns: Effects of inference making and verb semantics. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 385-393.
21. Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 39-68.
22. Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1990). Referential processes during reading: Focussing on roles and individuals. In G. B. Flores d'Arcais, D. Balota, & K. Rayner (Eds), Comprehension processes in reading Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, nouns, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-349.
24. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325-370.
25. Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, MIT, 44-50.
26. Hendriks, P., & De Hoop, H. (2001) Optimality theoretic semantics. Lingusitics and Philososphy, 24, 1-32.
27. Kaan, E., & Wijnen, F. (2001) Interpreting bare quantifiers in context. Presented at the Workshop on Sentence Processing to Discourse Interpretation: Crossing the Borders. Utrecht University, July 3, 2001.
28. Kurtzman, H. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243-279.
29. Longobardi, G. (2000) "Postverbal" subjects and the Mapping Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 691-702.
30. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Pyschological Review, 101, 676-703.
31. May, R. (1986). Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Partee, B. H. (1991). Domains of quantification and semantic typology. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1990 mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp 3-39). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
33. Rayner, K., Garrod, S., & Perfetti, C. (1992). Discourse influences during parsing are delayed. Cognition, 45, 109-139.
34. Ruyner, K., Sereno, S., Morris, R., Schmauder, R., & Clifton, C. J. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI 21-50.
35. Schütze, C. (2001). On Korean "Case stacking": The varied functions of the particles Ka and lui. The Linguistics Review, 18, 193-232.
36. 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.
37. Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics and processing. University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation,
38. Vallduvi, E. & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34, 459-519.
39. Van Lehn, K. A. (1978). Determining the scope of English quantifiers. Technical Report AI-TR-483, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
40. Von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.
41. Vonk, W. (1985). On the purpose of reading and the immediacy of processing pronouns. In R. Groner, G. W. McConkie, & C. M. (Eds.), Eye Movements and Human Information Processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.