Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 453-485

  Desmet, Timothy ^a   De Baecke, Constantijn ^a   Drieghe, Denis ^a   Brysbaert, Marc ^b   Vonk, Wietske ^c  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE TRACKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPOTHESIS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LINGUISTICS; NETHERLANDS; NORMAL HUMAN; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING;

EID: 33646678665     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960400023485     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Altmann, G. T. M. (2002). Learning and development in neural networks - the importance of prior experience. Cognition, 85, B43-B50.
2. Baltazart D., & Kister, L. (1995, September). Corrélation entre détermination et sélection d'un anaphorisé dans une structure N de N. Paper presented at the Séminaire 'Anaphore et Référence'. Nancy (CRIN): 20-22 September.
3. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355-387.
4. Bock, J. K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1-39.
5. Bock, J. K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150-171.
6. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
7. Corley, M. M. B. (1996). The role of statistics in human sentence processing. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Exeter.
8. Corrigan, R. (1986). The internal structure of English transitive sentences. Memory and Cognition, 14, 420-431.
9. Crocker, M. W., & Brants, T. (2000). Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 647-669.
10. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
11. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., & Corley, M. M. B. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sabastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
12. De Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001-1018.
13. De Groot, A. M. B., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (1995). The development of bilingual memory: Evidence from word translation by trilinguals. Language Learning, 45, 683-724.
14. Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & De Baecke, C. (2002a). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 879-896.
15. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2002b). The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch. Memory and Cognition, 30, 150-157.
16. Desmet, T., & Gibson, E. (2003). Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 353-374.
17. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
18. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA.
19. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Boston: MIT Press.
20. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99-156.
21. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Torrens, V. (1999). Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish. Memory and Cognition, 27, 603-611.
22. Gibson, E., & Schütze, C. T. (1999). Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 263-279.
23. Gibson, E., Schütze, C. T., & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
24. Grondelaers, S., Deygers, K., van Aken, H., van den Heede, V., & Speelman, D. (2000). Het ConDiv-corpus geschreven Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5, 356-363.
25. Igoa, J. M., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. (1998). A study on late closure in Spanish: Principle-grounded vs. frequency-based accounts of attachment preferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 561-592.
26. Itagaki, N., & Prideaux, G. D. (1985). Nominal properties as determinants of subject selection. Lingua, 66, 135-149.
27. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
28. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55-75). Oxford: Elsevier.
29. MacDonald, J. L., Bock, J. K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188-230.
30. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
31. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50-68.
32. McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137-176.
33. Meyer, A. S., & Bock, K. (1999). Representations and processes in the production of pronouns: Some perspectives from Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 281-301.
34. Mitchell, D. C., & Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to recent theories of crosslinguistic variation in parsing: Evidence from Dutch. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 313-335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
35. Mitchell, D. C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (2000). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of Construal Theory. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 493-516). Oxford: Elsevier.
36. Mitchell, D. C., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing. Austin: University of Texas, Centre for Cognitive Science.
37. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.
38. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Ransdell, S. E., & Fischler, I. (1987). Memory in monolingual mode: When are bilinguals at a disadvantage? Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 392-405.
40. Rohde, D. L. T. (2002). A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
41. Schütze, C. T., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 409-431.
42. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499-520.
43. Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
44. Sturt, P., Costa, F., Lombardo, V., & Frasconi, P. (2003). Learning first-pass structural attachment preferences with dynamic grammars and recursive neural networks. Cognition, 88, 133-169.
45. Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 211-271.
46. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
47. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105-143.
48. Wijnen, F. (1998, March). Dutch Relative Clause Attachment in Two- and Three-site Contexts. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
49. Yamamoto, Y. (1999). Animacy and reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.