Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 407-430

  Van Dyke, Julie A ^a  

^a HASKINS LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Complexity effects; Constraint based parsing; Cue based memory retrieval; Interference; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS;

ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CUES; HUMANS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 33947509688     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.407     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060.
2. Anderson, M. C., & Neely, J. H. (1996). Interference and inhibition in memory retrieval. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (Handbook of perception and cognition) (2nd ed., pp. 237-313). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
3. Bever, T., & Townsend, D. J. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Boland, J. E. (2004). Linking eye movements to sentence comprehension in reading and listening. In M. Carreiras & J. C. Clifton (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and beyond (pp. 51-76). Brighton, England: Psychology Press.
5. Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2001). Understanding the constraints on syntactic generation: Lexical bias and discourse congruency effects on eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 381-411.
6. Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. (2002). Readers' eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25-44.
7. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
8. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden-path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368-407.
9. Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.
10. Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 37-60.
11. Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164-203.
13. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11-15.
14. Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3-20.
15. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
16. Fodor, J. D., & Frazier, L. (1980). Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition, 8, 417-459.
17. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 405-432.
18. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101-142). Boston: Kluwer.
19. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (2000). Garden path re-analysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort. In M. D. Vincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 21-61). Boston: Kluwer.
20. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
21. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601-681). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Frazier, L. (1990). Exploring the architecture of the language system. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 409-433). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Randall, J. (1983). Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 13, 187-222.
25. 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.
26. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Center for Machine Translation Technical Report No. CMU-CMT-91-125). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
27. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
28. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz (Ed.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project symposium (pp. 94-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1-65.
30. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.
31. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114.
32. Gorfein, D. S., & Jacobson, D. E. (1972). Proactive effects in short-term recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95, 211-214.
33. Gorfein, D. S., & Jacobson, D. E. (1973). Memory search in a Brown- Peterson short-term memory paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 82-87.
34. Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261-290.
36. Hintzman, D. L. (1984). MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 16, 96-101.
37. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
38. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
39. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
40. King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
41. 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.
42. Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93-115.
43. Lewis, R. L. (1999). Accounting for the fine structure of syntactic working memory: Similarity-based interference as a unifying principle. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 105-106.
44. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375-419.
45. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447-454.
46. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
47. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
48. Markwardt, F. C. J. (1998). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
49. Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5, 203-220.
50. McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by contentaddressable memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 111-123.
51. McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
52. McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67-91.
53. McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal 2of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 134-157.
54. McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence processing: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 432-460.
55. McElree, B., Traxler, M., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition, 78, B17-B25.
56. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information. Psychological Review, 89, 609-626.
57. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1983). A distributed memory model for serial-order information. Psychological Review, 90, 316-338.
58. Nairne, J. S. (1990). A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition, 18, 251-269.
59. Nairne, J. S. (2002). Remembering over the short-term: The case against the standard model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 53-81.
60. Ni, W., Fodor, J. D., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1998). Anomaly detection: Eye movement patterns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 515-539.
61. Petrusic, W. M., & Dillon, R. F. (1972). Proactive interference in shortterm recognition and recall memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95, 412-418.
62. Pike, R. (1984). A comparison of convolution and matrix distributed memory systems. Psychological Review, 91, 281-294.
63. Pollard, C. J., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
64. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93-134.
65. Schneider, W. (1995). MEL Professional (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
66. Steedman, M. (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67. Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 295-322.
68. Stevenson, S. (1998). Parsing as incremental restructuring. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 327-364). Boston: Kluwer.
69. Stevenson, S., & Merlo, P. (1997). Lexical structure and parsing complexity. Language and Cognitive Process, 12, 349-399.
70. Stolz, W. S. (1967). A study of the ability to decode grammatically novel sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 867-873.
71. Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449-494.
72. Tabor, W. (2006, March). A unified, self-organizing model of garden path phenomena, center-embedding phenomena, and interference effects. Paper presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.
73. Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355-370.
74. Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431-450.
75. Van Dyke, J. A. (2002). Retrieval effects in sentence parsing and interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
76. Van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285-316.
77. Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 157-166.
78. 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.
79. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.
80. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2005). Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 751-767.
81. Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 442-452.
82. Wickens, D. D. (1970). Encoding categories of words: An empirical approach to meaning. Psychological Review, 77, 1-15.