Processing the noun phrase versus sentence coordination ambiguity: Thematic information does not completely eliminate processing difficulty

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 1581-1599

  Hoeks, John C J ^a,e   Hendriks, Petra ^a   Vonk, Wietske ^b,c   Brown, Colin M ^c   Hagoort, Peter ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONCEPT FORMATION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED RESPONSE; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MENTAL FUNCTION; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; READING; SEMANTICS; STUDENT;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CONCEPT FORMATION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MENTAL PROCESSES; NETHERLANDS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS; STUDENTS;

EID: 33746846231     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210500268982     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Altmann, G. T. M. (1994). Regression-contingent analyses of eye movements during sentence processing: Reply to Rayner and Sereno. Memory and Cognition, 22, 286-290.
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., van Nice, K. Y., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. A. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 459-484.
4. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
5. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77-126.
6. Clifton, C., Jr., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317-334.
7. Cozijn, R. (2000). Integration and inference in understanding causal sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
8. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320-358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & De Baecke, C. (2002). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 879-896.
10. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
11. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101-141). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
12. Frazier, L. (1987a). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601-681). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
13. Frazier, L. (1987b). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519-559.
14. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 277-295.
16. Gibbs, R. W., & Moise, J. F. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition, 62, 51-74.
17. 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.
18. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-484.
19. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., Vonk, W., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2005). Syntactic ambiguity effects in coordination structures: ERP evidence. Unpublished manuscript, FC Donders Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
20. Hendriks, P. (2004). Coherence relations, ellipsis, and contrastive topics. Journal of Semantics, 21, 133-153.
21. Hoeks, J. C. J. (1999). The processing of coordination: Semantic and pragmatic constraints on ambiguity resolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
22. Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, L. H. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59-73.
23. Hoeks, J. C. J., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). Processing coordinated structures in context: The effect of topic-structure on ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 99-119.
24. Irwin, D. E. (1998). Lexical processing during saccadic eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 1-27.
25. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 98, 122-149.
26. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
27. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621-635.
28. Katz, B., Mueller, K., & Helmle, H. (1987). Binocular eye movement recording with CCD arrays. Neuroophthalmology, 7, 81-91.
29. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
30. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.
31. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge, MA: University Press.
32. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Underwood, G. (1997, March). Exploring the effects of quantifiers on parsing. Poster presented at the Tenth CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
33. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
34. McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word order and world order Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188-230.
35. McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 134-157.
36. McRae, K., Feretti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137-176.
37. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.
38. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarsegrained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-487.
39. Mithun, M. (1988). The grammaticization of coordination. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 331-360). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
40. Murray, W. (2000). Sentence processing: Issues and measures. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 649-664). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
41. Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics, and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283-334.
42. Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940-961.
43. Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447-475.
44. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 372-422.
45. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of 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.
46. Rayner, K., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2002). Language comprehension. In D. Medin (Vol. Ed.), Stevens handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 2. Memory and cognitive processes (3rd ed., pp. 261-316). New York: Wiley.
47. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14, 191-201.
48. Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. A. (1994a). Regression-contingent analyses: A reply to Altmann. Memory and Cognition, 22, 291-292.
49. Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. A. (1994b). Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression-contingent analyses. Memory and Cognition, 22, 281-285.
50. Stowe, L. A. (1989). Thematic structures in sentence comprehension. In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
51. Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449-494.
52. Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1997). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 297-322.
53. Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136-150.
54. Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G. N., & Trueswell, J. C. (1989). The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 211-234.
55. Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language and communication (pp. 217-262). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
56. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
57. 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.
58. Van Compel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 225-258.
59. Vonk, W., & Cozijn, R. (2003). On the treatment of saccades and regressions in eye movement measures of reading time. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind's eye; Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp.291-312). Oxford: Elsevier.