Shallow processing and underspecification

Discourse Processes

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 99-108

  Sanford, Anthony J ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748575929     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_1     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Alshawi, H. (Ed.). (1992) The core language engine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Baker, L. (1985). Differences in standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 298-313.
3. Baker, L., & Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination. Memory & Cognition, 15, 247-255.
4. Barton, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477-487.
5. Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effects on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologies 67, 135-144.
6. Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1977). Reading comprehension as eyes see it. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
8. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368-407.
9. Christianson, K., Williams, C., Zacks, R., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults' "good-enough" interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205-238.
10. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671-684.
11. Daneman, M., Hannon, B., & Burton, C. (2006). Are there age-related differences in shallow semantic processing of text? Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Processes, 42, 177-204.
12. Erickson, T. A., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meanings: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 20, 540-552.
13. Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
14. Fillenbaum, S. (1971). Processing and recall of incompatible question and answer pairs. Language and Speech, 14, 256-265.
15. Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Pragmatic normalization: Further results from some conjunctive and disjunctive sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 574-578.
16. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200.
17. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1366-1383.
18. Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
19. Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 465-486). London: Academic.
20. Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 247-269.
21. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Olde, B. A., Cooper-Pye, E., & Whitten, S. (2005). Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices break down. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1235-1247.
22. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual differences perspective. Memory & Cognition, 29, 449-462.
23. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2004). Shallow processing of text: An individual differences account. Discourse Processes, 37, 187-204.
24. Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., & May, C. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 653-675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Hobbs, J. R., & Schieber, S. M. (1987). An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings. Computational Linguistics, 13, 47-63.
26. Hudson, S. B., Tannenhaus, M. K., & Dell, G. S. (1986). The effect of discourse center on the local coherence of a discourse. In Proceedings of the eighth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 96-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Kamas, E. N., Reder, L. M., & Ayers, M. S. (1996). Partial matching in the Moses illusion: Response bias not sensitivity. Memory & Cognition, 24, 687-699.
28. Kemptes, K. A., & Kemper, S. (1997). Younger and older adults' on-line processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences. Psychology and Aging, 12, 362-371.
29. Natsopoulos, D. (1985). A verbal illusion in two languages. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 385-397.
30. Nichol, J. L., & Swinney, D. A. (2003). The psycholinguistics of anaphora. In A. Barss (Ed.), Anaphora: A reference guide (pp. 72-104). Oxford, England: Black well.
31. Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in text: What readers believe versus what the read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-235.
32. Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L., & Traxler, M. (2006). Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes, 42, 131-155.
33. Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R., & Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes, 42, 157-175.
34. Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385-406.
35. Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing with ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, representation, and deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10, 123-179.
36. Rus, V., & Moldovan, D. I. (2002). High precision logic form transformation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 11, 437-454.
37. Salthouse, T. A. (1992). Influence of processing speed on adult age differences in working memory. Acta Psychologica, 79, 155-170.
38. Sanford, A. J., & Start, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382-386.
39. Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Moll, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Attention capture in writing and speech. Discourse Processes, 42, 109-130.
40. Start, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 882-888.
41. Van Oostendorp, H., & De Mul, S. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 74, 35-46.
42. Van Oostendorp, H., & Kok, I. (1990). Failing to notice errors in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 105-113.
43. Wason, P., & Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 591-597.