Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 348-379

  Roland, Douglas ^a   Dick, Frederic ^b,c   Elman, Jeffrey L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Corpus; Frequency; Sentence processing; Verb subcategorization; Word order

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548224257     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Bates E., D'Amico S., Jacobsen T., Székely A., Andonova E., Devescovi A., et al. Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10 (2003) 344-380
2. Bates E., and MacWhinney B. Competition, variation, and language learning. In: MacWhinney B. (Ed). Mechanisms of language aquisition (1987), Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, England 157-193
3. Berndt R.S., Mitchum C.C., and Haendiges A.N. Comprehension of reversible sentences in "agrammatism": A meta-analysis. Cognition 58 (1996) 289-308
4. Biber D. Variation across speech and writing (1988), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
5. Biber D. Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics 19 (1993) 219-241
6. Biber D., Conrad S., and Reppen R. Corpus linguistics (1998), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
8. Blumstein S.E., Byma G., Kurowski K., Hourihan J., Brown T., and Hutchinson A. On-line processing of filler-gap constructions in aphasia. Brain and Language 61 (1998) 149-168
9. Burnard L. Users reference guide for the British National Corpus (1995), Oxford University Computing Services, Oxford
10. Bybee J. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language & Cognitive Processes 10 (1995) 425-455
11. Caplan D., and Waters G.S. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 22 (1999) 77-126
12. Caramazza A., and Zurif E.B. Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language 3 (1976) 572-582
13. Chafe W. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In: Tannen D. (Ed). Spoken and written language (1982), Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey 35-53
14. Charniak, E. (1995). Parsing with context free grammars and word statistics (No. CS-95-28). Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University.
15. Charniak, E. (1997). Statistical parsing with a context-free grammar and word statistics. In Proceedings of the fourteenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 598-603). Menlo Park: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
16. Chomsky N. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2 (1956) 113-124
17. Christiansen M.H., and Chater N. Connectionist natural language processing: The state of the art. Cognitive Science 23 (1999) 417-437
18. Cohen L., and Mehler J. Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 24 (1996) 94-102
19. Collins, M. J. (1996). A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 184-191). Santa Cruz, CA.
20. Collins, M. J. (1997). Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 16-23). Madrid, Spain.
21. Collins, M. J. (1999). Head-driven statistical models for natural language processing. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
22. Connine C., Ferreira F., Jones C., Clifton C., and Frazier L. Verb frame preference: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13 (1984) 307-319
23. Constable R.T., Pugh K.R., Berroya E., Mencl W.E., Westerveld M., Ni W., et al. Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 22 (2004) 11-21
24. Cuetos F., and Mitchell D.C. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30 (1988) 73-105
25. Dahan D., and Tanenhaus M.K. Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30 (2004) 498-513
26. Desmet T., De Baecke C., Drieghe D., Brysbaert M., and Vonk W. Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language & Cognitive Processes 21 (2006) 453-485
27. Desmet T., and Gibson E. Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (2003) 353-374
28. Dick F., Bates E., Wulfeck B., Utman J.A., Dronkers N., and Gernsbacher M.A. Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review 108 (2001) 759-788
29. Dick, F., Butler, A. C., Ferreira, V. S., Gernsbacher, M. A., & St. John, M. (submitted for publication). Frequency-evoked syntactic plasticity in artificially induced agrammatism.
30. Dick F., Wulfeck B., Krupa-Kwiatkowski M., and Bates E. The development of complex sentence interpretation in typically developing children compared with children with specific language impairments or early unilateral focal lesions. Developmental Science 7 3 (2004) 360-377
31. Dickey M.W., and Thompson C.K. The resolution and recovery of filler-gap dependencies in aphasia: Evidence from on-line anomaly detection. Brain and Language 88 (2004) 108-127
32. Ferreira F. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47 (2003) 164-203
33. Ferreira V.S., and Dell G.S. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40 (2000) 296-340
34. Ferreira V.S., and Firato C.E. Proactive interference effects on sentence production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (2002) 795-800
35. Fox B.A. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis?. Language 64 4 (1987) 856-870
36. Fox B.A., and Thompson S.A. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66 2 (1990) 297-316
37. Fox B.A., and Thompson S.A. Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31 2 (2007) 293-326
38. Francis W.N., and Kučera H. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar (1982), Houghton Mifflin, Boston
39. Friedmann N., and Novogrodsky R. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language 31 (2004) 661-681
40. Gahl S., Jurafsky D., and Roland D. Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 36 (2004) 432-443
41. Garnsey S.M., Pearlmutter N.J., Myers E., and Lotocky M.A. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37 (1997) 58-93
42. Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2005). Parsing indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Poster presented at the CUNY 2005 Sentence Processing Conference, March 31st-April 2nd, Tucson, AZ.
43. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68 (1998) 1-76
44. Gibson E., and Schütze C.T. Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language 40 (1999) 263-279
45. Gibson E., Schütze C.T., and Salomon A. The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25 (1996) 59-92
46. Gilboy E., Sopena J.-M., Clifton C., and Frazier L. Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition 54 (1995) 131-167
47. Gildea, D. (2001). Corpus variation and parser performance. In L. Lee & D. Harman (Eds.), In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 167-172). Carnegie Mellon University.
48. Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of ICASSP-92 (pp. 517-520). San Francisco.
49. Goldberg A. Constructions (1995), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
50. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., and Johnson M. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27 (2001) 1411-1423
51. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., and Johnson M. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51 (2004) 97-114
52. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., and Levine W.H. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13 (2002) 425-430
53. Grishman, R., Macleod, C., & Meyers, A. (1994). Complex syntax: Building a computational lexicon. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING 94) (pp. 268-272). Kyoto, Japan.
54. Grodner D., Gibson E., and Tunstall S. Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 46 (2002) 267-295
55. Grodzinsky Y. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 23 (2000) 1-71
56. Hare M., McRae K., and Elman J. Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language 48 (2003) 281-303
57. Hare M., McRae K., and Elman J.L. Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense. Language & Cognitive Processes 19 (2004) 181-224
58. Hare M., Tanenhaus M.K., and McRae K. Understanding and producing the reduced relative construction: Evidence from ratings, editing and corpora. Journal of Memory and Language 56 (2007) 410-435
59. Hawkins J.A. Symmetries and asymmetries: Their grammar, typology and parsing. Theoretical Linguistics 28 2 (2002) 95-150
60. Holmes V.M., Stowe L., and Cupples L. Lexical expectations in parsing complement-verb sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 28 (1989) 668-689
61. Hsiao F., and Gibson E. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90 (2003) 3-27
62. Jaeger, T. F. (2005). Optional that indicates production difficulty: Evidence from disfluencies. In Proceedings of DiSS'05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop (pp. 103-109). Aix-en-Provence, France.
63. Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Phonological optimization and syntactic variation: The case of optional that. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
64. Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. (2005). Production complexity driven variation: The case of relativizer distribution in non-subject-extracted relative clauses. Paper presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, March 31st-April 2nd, Tuscon, AZ.
65. Jurafsky D. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20 (1996) 137-194
66. Jurafsky D., and Martin J.H. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (2000), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J
67. Kamide Y., Altmann G.T.M., and Haywood S.L. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (2003) 133-156
68. Kempe V., and MacWhinney B. Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language & Cognitive Processes 14 (1999)
69. Kennison S.M. American English usage frequencies for noun phrase and tensed sentence complement-taking verbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28 (1999) 165-177
70. Kutas M., and King J.W. The potentials for basic sentence processing: Differentiating integrative processes. In: Ikeda I., and McClelland J.L. (Eds). Attention and performance Vol. XVI (1996), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 501-546
71. Lapata M., Keller F., and Schulte im Walde S. Verb frame frequency as a predictor of verb bias. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (2001) 419-435
72. MacDonald M.C. Lexical representations and sentence processing: An introduction. Language & Cognitive Processes 12 (1997) 121-136
73. MacDonald M.C. Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In: MacWhinney B., et al. (Ed). The emergence of language (1999), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA 177-196 xvii
74. MacDonald M.C., Pearlmutter N.J., and Seidenberg M.S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101 (1994) 676-703
75. Manning C., and Schutze H. Foundations of statistical natural language processing (1999), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
76. Marcus, M. P., Kim, G., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., MacIntyre, R., Bies, A., Ferguson, M., et al. (1994). The Penn Treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In Human language technology: Proceedings of a workshop held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 8-11, 1994 (pp. 114-119). Plainsboro, N.J.
77. Marcus M.P., Santorini B., and Marcinkiewicz M.A. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19 2 (1993) 313-330
78. McRae K., Jared D., and Seidenberg M.S. On the roles of frequency and lexical access in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language 29 (1990) 43-65
79. Merlo P. A corpus-based analysis of verb continuation frequencies for syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23 (1994) 435-447
80. Mitchell D.C., Cuetos F., Corley M.M.B., and Brysbaert M. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Special Issue: Sentence processing: I 24 (1995) 469-488
81. Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the cognitive science society COGSCI-98 (pp. 752-757).
82. Narayanan S., and Jurafsky D. A Bayesian Model Predicts Human Parse Preference and Reading Time in Sentence Processing. In: Dietterich T.G., Becker S., and Ghahramani Z. (Eds). Advances in neural information processing systems Vol. 14 (2002), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 59-65
83. Penolazzi B., De Vincenzi M., Angrilli A., and Job R. Processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity in Italian "who"-questions" a study with event related potentials. Neuroscience Letters 377 (2005) 91-96
84. Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passive and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 157-189).
85. Plunkett K., and Marchman V. From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48 (1993) 21-69
86. Plunkett K., and Marchman V.A. Learning from a connectionist model of the acquisition of the English past tense. Cognition 61 (1996) 299-308
87. Rayner K., Warren T., Juhasz B.J., and Liversedge S.P. The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30 (2004) 1290-1301
88. Reali F., and Christiansen M.H. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57 (2007) 1-23
89. Roland D. Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International 62 11-A (2001) 3762
90. Roland D., Elman J.L., and Ferreira V.S. Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 98 (2006) 245-272
91. Roland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). How verb subcategorization frequencies are affected by corpus choice. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL 1998 (pp. 1117-1121). Montreal, Canada.
92. Roland D., and Jurafsky D. Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In: Merlo P., and Stevenson S. (Eds). The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational, and experimental issues (2002), John Benjamins
93. Roland, D., Jurafsky, D., Menn, L., Gahl, S., Elder, E., & Riddoch, C. (2000). Verb subcategorization frequency differences between business-news and balanced corpora: The role of verb sense. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora (pp. 28-34). Hong Kong, October 2000.
94. Sag I.A., and Wasow T. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction (1999), C S L I Publications, Stanford, CA
95. Shapiro L.P., Gordon B., Hack N., and Killackey J. Verb-argument structure processing in complex sentences in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia. Brain and Language 45 (1993) 423-447
96. Sharkey N. Connectionist natural language processing (1992), Intellect Books, Oxford
97. Snodgrass J.G., and Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 10 (1980) 174-215
98. St. John M.F., and Gernsbacher M.A. Learning and losing syntax: Practice makes perfect and frequency builds fortitude. In: Healy A.F., and Bourne Jr. L.E. (Eds). Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (1998), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA 231-255 Incorporated
99. Stromswold K., Caplan D., Alpert N., and Rauch S. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52 (1996) 452-473
100. Temperley D. Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 79 3 (2003) 464-484
101. Thomas, M. S. C., & Redington, M. (2004). Modelling atypical syntax processing. In W. Sakas (Ed.), Proceedings of the first workshop on psycho-computational models of human language acquisition at the 20th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 85-92). Geneva, Switzerland.
102. Thompson S.A. The passive in English: A discourse perspective. In: Channon R., and Shockey L. (Eds). Honor of Ilse Lehiste/Ilse Lehiste Puhendusteos (1987), Foris, Dordrecht 497-511
103. Thompson S.A., and Mulac A. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer 'that' in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15 (1991) 237-251
104. Tottie G. The man 0 I love: An analysis of factors favouring zero relatives in written British and American English. In: Melchers G., and Warren B. (Eds). Studies in anglistics (1995), Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm 201-215
105. Traxler M.J., Morris R.K., and Seely R.E. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 69-90
106. Traxler M.J., Williams R.S., Blozis S.A., and Morris R.K. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53 (2005) 204-224
107. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., and Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19 (1993) 528-553
108. Vos S.H., and Friederici A.D. Intersentential syntactic context effects on comprehension: The role of working memory. Cognitive Brain Research 16 (2003) 111-122
109. Warren T., and Gibson E. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85 (2002) 79-112
110. Warren T., and Gibson E. Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language & Cognitive Processes 20 (2005) 751-767
111. Wasow, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Orr, D. (2005). Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. Paper presented at the workshop on expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar at the 27th annual meeting of the German Linguistic Association, University of Cologne, Germany.