Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 201-216

  Swets, Benjamin ^a   Desmet, Timothy ^b   Clifton Jr , Charles ^c   Ferreira, Fernanda ^d  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; READING; COGNITION; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; SELF CONCEPT; SPEECH; STATISTICS; TIME;

COGNITION; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGY; READING; SELF EFFICACY; SPEECH; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 41649117737     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. CHATER, N., CROCKER, M., & PICKERING, M. (1998). The rational analysis of inquiry: The case of parsing. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 441-468). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. CHATER, N., OAKSFORD, M., NAKISA, R., & REDINGTON, M. (2003). Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 90, 63-86.
3. CHRISTIANSON, K., HOLLINGWORTH, A., HALLIWELL, J. F., & FERREIRA, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368-407.
4. CLIFTON, C., JR., STAUB, A., & RAYNER, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5. CUTLER, A., & FODOR, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49-59.
6. ENDSLEY, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32-64.
7. FERREIRA, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164-203.
8. FERREIRA, F., BAILEY, K. G. D., & FERRARO, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
9. FERREIRA, F., & HENDERSON, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 555-568.
10. FRAZIER, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
11. FRAZIER, L., & CLIFTON, C., JR. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. GIBSON, E., & PEARLMUTTER, N. J. (2000). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 231-240.
13. GIGERENZER, G., TODD, P. M., & THE ABC RESEARCH GROUP (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. GILBOY, E., SOPENA, J.-M., CLIFTON, C., JR., & FRAZIER, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
15. GLENBERG, A. M., WILKINSON, A. C., & EPSTEIN, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597-602.
16. GORRELL, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. GREEN, M. J., & MITCHELL, D. C. (2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 1-17.
18. HORNBY, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 530-538.
19. LEWIS, R. L. (2000). Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: Empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 241-248.
20. MACDONALD, M. C., PEARLMUTTER, N. J., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
21. MARCUS, M. P. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. MARCUS, M. P., HINDLE, D., & FLECK, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 129-136). Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
23. MCRAE, K., SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M. J., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 283-312.
24. MISTLER-LACHMAN, J. L. (1972). Levels of comprehension in processing of normal and ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 614-623.
25. OTERO, J., & KINTSCH, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-235.
26. REDER, L. M., & KUSBIT, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 385-406.
27. SANFORD, A. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind & Language, 17, 188-206.
28. SANFORD, A. J., & STURT, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382-386.
29. SIMON, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
30. SINGER, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 574-591.
31. SINGER, M., & HALLDORSON, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 1-38.
32. SINGER, M., HALLDORSON, M., LEAR, J. C., & ANDRUSIAK, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourse understanding. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 507-524.
33. SPIVEY, M. J., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1521-1543.
34. SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M. [J.], & SEDIVY, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
35. STURT, P., & CROCKER, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language & Cognitive Processes, 11, 449-494.
36. STURT, P., & CROCKER, M. W. (1997). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 297-322.
37. STURT, P., PICKERING, M. J., SCHEEPERS, C., & CROCKER, M. W. (2001). The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort? Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 283-307.
38. STURT, P., SANFORD, A. J., STEWART, A., & DAWYDIAK, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations'. An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882-888.
39. SWETS, B., DESMET, T., HAMBRICK, D. Z., & FERREIRA, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64-81.
40. TABOR, W., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 491-515.
41. TOWNSEND, D. J., & BEVER, T. G. (1991). The use of higher-level constraints in monitoring for a change in speaker demonstrates functionally distinct levels of representation in discourse comprehension. Language & Cognitive Processes, 6, 49-77.
42. TOWNSEND, D. J., HOOVER, M., & BEVER, T. G. (2000). Word-monitoring tasks interact with levels of representation during speech comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 265-274.
43. TRAXLER, M. J. (2007). Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1107-1121.
44. TRAXLER, M. J., PICKERING, M. J., & CLIFTON, C., JR. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 558-592.
45. VAN GOMPEL, R. P. G., PICKERING, M. J., PEARSON, J., & LIVERSEDGE, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 284-307.
46. VAN GOMPEL, 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 & Language, 45, 225-258.
47. WEBER-MCROY, S., & HIRST, G. (1990). Race-based parsing and syntactic disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 14, 313-353.
48. WEINBERG, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 339-364.