Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 283-334

  Ni, Weijia ^a   Grain, Stephen ^a,b   Shankweiler, Donald ^a,c  

^a HASKINS LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21344451119     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/016909696387196     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Altmann, G.T.M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
2. Altmann, G.T.M., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685-712.
3. Altmann, G.T.M., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J.A. (1994). Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 209-216.
4. Beach, C. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644-663.
5. Bever, T.G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J.R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley.
6. Boland, J.E., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Garnsey, S.M. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413-432.
7. Britt, M.A. (1991). The role of referential uniqueness and argument structure in parsing prepositional phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
8. Britt, M.A., Perfetti, C.A., Garrod, S., & Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing and discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 293-314.
9. Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (1989). Ambiguity in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 77-103.
10. Crain, S., & Ni, W. (1991). Parsermony. In Proceedings of Texas Conference on Cognitive Science, Vol. X, University of Texas, Austin, TX, April.
11. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D.R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A.M. Zwicky (Eds), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Crain, S., Shankweiler, D., Macaruso, P., & Bar-Shalom, E. (1990). Working memory and comprehension of spoken sentences. Investigations of children with reading disorders. In G. Vallar & T. Shallice (Eds), Neuropsychological impairments of short-term memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
14. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
15. Fodor, J.D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407-434.
16. Fodor, J.D., Ni, W., Grain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Tasks and timing in the perception of linguistic anomaly. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 25-57.
17. Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203-218.
18. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.
19. Frazier, L. (1994). Sentences (re)analysis. Paper presented at the 7th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, CUNY, New York, March.
20. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. 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.
22. Gibson, E. (in press). Memory limitations and sentence processing breakdown. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation of generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1993). Contingent frequency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Society, pp. 593-598. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
25. Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1994). A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 459-471.
26. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
27. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
28. Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181-194.
29. Kennedy, A., & Murray, W.S. (1984). Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 833-849.
30. Krifka, M. (1991). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft, 4. Also in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) I, Cornell Working Papers II.
31. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339-359.
32. MacDonald, M.C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 32, 692-715.
33. MacDonald, M.C., Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.
34. MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, pp. 123-153. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
35. Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Tyler, L.K., Warren, P., Grenier, P., & Lee, C.S. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45 A, 73-87.
36. Merlo, P. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of verb continuation frequencies for syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 435-457.
37. Mitchell, D.C., Corley, M.M.B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 69-88.
38. Murray, W., & Liversedge, S. (1994). Referential context and syntactic processing. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, pp. 359-388. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
39. Nagel, H.N., & Shapiro, L.P. (1994). Prosody and the processing of filler-gap sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 473-485.
40. Ni, W., & Grain, S. (1990). How to resolve structural ambiguities. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 20/2, pp. 414-427. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
41. Pearlmutter, N., & MacDonald, M.C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 521-542.
42. Perfetti, C.A. (1991). The cooperative language processors: Semantic influence in autonomous syntax. In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds), Comprehension processes in reading, pp. 205-230. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
43. Price, P.J., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956-2970.
44. Rayner, K. (1993). Eye movements in reading: Recent developments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 81-85.
45. Rayner, K., & Morris, R. (1991). Comprehension processes in reading ambiguous sentences: Reflections from eye movements. In G.B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
46. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction between syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
47. Rayner, K., Sereno, S.C., Morris, R.K., Schmauder, A.R., & Clifton, C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3/4, 21-49.
48. Rayner, K., Garrod, S., & Perfetti, C.A. (1992). Discourse influence during parsing is delayed. Cognition, 45, 109-139.
49. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
50. Sedivy, J.C., & Spivey-Knowlton, M.J. (1994). The use of structural, lexical, and pragmatic information in parsing attachment ambiguities. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, pp. 389-413. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
51. Soames, S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 483-545.
52. Speer, S.R., Crowder, R.G., & Thomas, L.M. (1993). Prosodic structure and sentence recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 336-358.
53. Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
54. Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1994). Referential context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, pp. 415-439. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
55. Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Trueswell, J.C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 276-309.
56. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M.K. Munitz & P.K. Unger (Eds), Semantics and philosophy. New York: New York University Press.
57. Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., McRae, K., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds), Attention and performance XV. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
58. Tanenhaus, M.K., & Trueswell, J.C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. Miller & P. Eimas (Eds), Handbook of perception and cognition, Vol. 11: Speech, language and communication. New York: Academic Press.
59. Tanenhaus, M.K., Garnsey, S.M., & Boland, J.E. (1991). Combinatory lexical information and language comprehension. In G.T.M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Taraban, R., & McClelland, J.L. (1990). Parsing and comprehension: A multiple-constraint view. In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
61. Trueswell, J.C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1994). Toward a constraint-based lexicalist approach to syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, pp. 155-179. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
62. Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Garnsey, S.M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.