Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 60, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 464-486

  Patson, Nikole D ^a   Ferreira, Fernanda ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complex Reference Object; Conjoined noun phrases; Plural noun phrases; Sentence processing; Syntactic processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 62949244893     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Albrecht J.E., and Clifton C. Accessing singular antecedents in conjoined phrases. Memory & Cognition 26 (1998) 599-610
2. Barker C. Group terms in English: Representing groups as atoms. Journal of Semantics 9 (1992) 69-93
3. Clark H.H. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy. A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12 (1973) 335-359
4. Eschenbach C., Habel C., Herweg M., and Rehkamper K. Remarks on plural anaphora. Proceedings of 4th conference of European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (1989), U Manchester 161-167
5. Ferreira F., Bailey K.G.D., and Ferraro V. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11 (2002) 11-15
6. Ferreira F., and McClure K.K. Parsing of garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 12 (1997) 273-306
7. In: Fodor J.D., and Ferreira F. (Eds). Renanalysis in sentence processing (1998), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
8. Frazier L. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In: Coltheart M. (Ed). Attention and Performance XII (1987), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 559-586
9. 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
10. Garrod S.C., and Sanford A.J. The mental interpretation of discourse in a focused memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun-phrases. Journal of Semantics 1 (1982) 21-41
11. Gleitman L.R., Gleitman H., Miller C., and Ostrin R. Similar and similar concepts. Cognition 58 (1996) 321-376
12. Green M.J., and Mitchell D.C. Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 55 (2006) 1-17
13. Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Tabaczynski, T., & McRae, K. (in press). The wind chilled the spectators, but the wine just chilled: Sense, structure, and sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science.
14. Humphreys K.R., and Bock K. Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12 (2005) 689-695
15. Kamp H., and Reyle U. From discourse to logic (1993), Kluwer, Dordrecht
16. Kaup B., Kelter S., and Habel C. Representing referents of plural expressions and resolving plural anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 17 (2002) 405-450
17. Koh S., and Clifton C.A. Representing referents of plural expressions and plural anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 46 (2002) 830-844
18. MacDonald M.C., Pearlmutter N.J., and Seidenberg M.S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101 (1994) 676-703
19. Masson M.E., and Loftus G.R. Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 57 (2003) 202-220
20. Moxey L.M., Sanford A.J., Sturt P., and Morrow L.I. Constrains on the formation of plural reference objects: The influence of role, conjunction, and type of description. Journal of Memory and Language 51 (2004) 346-364
21. Sanford A.J., and Lockhart F. Description types and method of conjoining as factors influencing plural anaphora: A continuation study of focus. Journal of Semantics 7 (1990) 365-378
22. Sturt P., Pickering M.J., Sheepers C., and Crocker M.W. The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort?. Journal of Memory and Language 45 (2001) 283-307
23. Swets B., Desmet T., Clifton C., and Ferreira F. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition 36 (2008) 201-216
24. 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
25. Van Gompel R.P.G., Pickering M.J., and Traxler M.J. Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language 45 (2001) 225-258
26. Williamson T. Vagueness (1994), Routledge, London