People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible

Linguistics and Language Compass

Volumn 3, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1417-1429

  McRae, Ken ^a   Matsuki, Kazunaga ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 73249117239     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1749818X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00174.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Altmann, Gerry, and Yuki Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73.247-64.
2. Altmann, Gerry T. M., and Yuki Kamide. 2007. The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 57.502-18.
3. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.577-660.
4. Bicknell, Klinton, Jeffrey L. Elman, Mary Hare, Ken McRae, and Marta Kutas. 2008. Online expectations for verbal arguments conditional on event knowledge. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Bradley C. Love, Ken McRae and Vladimir M. Sloutsky, 2220-5. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
5. Binder, Katherine S., Susan A. Duffy, and Keith Rayner. 2001. The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 44.297-324.
6. Bornkessel, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky. 2006. The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 113.787-821.
7. Camblin, C. Christine, Peter C. Gordon, and Tamara Y. Swaab. 2007. The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory & Language 56.103-28.
8. Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York, NY: Pantheon.
9. Chwilla, Dorothee J., and Herman H.J. Kolk. 2005. Accessing world knowledge: evidence from N400 and reaction time priming. Cognitive Brain Research 25.589-606.
10. Clifton, Charles Jr., Shari R. Speer, and Stephen Abney. 1991. Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language 30.251-71.
11. Clifton, Charles Jr., Shari R. Speer, and Adrian Staub. 2008. Parallelism and competition in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics Compass 2.234-50.
12. DeLong, Katherine A., Thomas P. Urbach, and Marta Kutas. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8.1117-21.
13. Federmeier, Kara D., and Marta Kutas. 1999. A rose by any other name: long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 41.469-95.
14. Ferretti, Todd R., Marta Kutas, and Ken McRae. 2007. Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33.182-96.
15. Ferretti, Todd R, Ken McRae, and Andrea Hatherell. 2001. Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language 44.516-47.
16. Frazier, Lynne. 1995. Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24.437-68.
17. Garnsey, Susan M., Neal J. Pearlmutter, Elizabeth Meyers, and Melanie A. Lotocky. 1997. The contribution of verb-bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37.58-93.
18. Hagoort, Peter, Lea Hald, Marcel Bastiaansen, and Karl Magnus Petersson. 2004. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 304.438-41.
19. Hare, Mary, Jeffrey L. Elman, Tracy Tabaczynski, and Ken McRae. 2009. The wind chilled the spectators, but the wine just chilled: sense, structure, and sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science 33.610-28.
20. Hare, Mary, Ken McRae, and Jeffrey L. Elman. 2003. Sense and structure: meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language 48.281-303.
21. Hare, Mary, Ken McRae, and Jeffrey L. Elman. 2004. Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense. Language and Cognitive Processes 19.181-224.
22. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23. Kamide, Yuki. 2008. Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2.647-70.
24. Kamide, Yuki. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49.133-56.
25. Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
26. Kutas, Marta, and Kara D. Federmeier. 2000. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4.463-70.
27. MacDonald, Maryellen C. 1994. Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 9.157-201.
28. Madden, Carol, and Rolf Zwaan. 2003. How does verb aspect constrain event representations? Memory and Cognition 31.663-72.
29. Matsuki, Kazunaga, Tracy Chow, Mary Hare, Jeffery L. Elman, Christoph Scheepers, and Ken McRae. 2009. Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
30. McRae, Ken, Mary Hare, Jeffrey L. Elman, and Todd R. Ferretti. 2005. A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory and Cognition 33.1174-84.
31. Moss, Helen E., Ruth K. Ostrin, Lorraine K. Tyler, and William D. Marslen-Wilson. 1995. Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21.863-83.
32. Neely, James H. 1991. Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: a selective view of current findings and theories. Basic processes in reading: visual word recognition, ed. by Derek Besner and Glyn W. Humphreys, 264-336. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Otten, Marte, and Jos J.A. Van Berkum. 2007. What makes a discourse constraining? Comparing the effects of discourse message and scenario fit on the discourse-dependent N400 effect. Brain Research 1153.166-77.
34. Pickering, Martin J., and Simon Garrod. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11.105-10.
35. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17.109-441.
36. Race, David, Natalie Klein, Mary Hare, and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2008. What do shoppers expect to save? Agents influence patients via events, not associative priming. Poster session presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
37. Rayner, Keith, Tessa Warren, Barbara J. Juhasz, and Simon P. Liversedge. 2004. The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30.1290-301.
38. Roland, Douglas, and Dan Jurafsky. 2002. Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. The lexical basis of sentence processing: formal, computational, and experimental issues, ed. by Paola Merlo and Suzanne Stevenson, 303-24. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
39. Rumelhart, David E., Paul Smolensky, James McClelland, and Geoff E. Hinton. 1986. Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 2, ed. by David E. Rumelhart and James L. McClelland, 7-57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
41. Schü tze, Carlson T., and Edward Gibson. 1999. Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 40.409-31.
42. Sperber, Daniel, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Spivey, Michael. 2006. The continuity of mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44. Traxler, Matthew J., Donald J. Foss, Rachel E. Seely, Barbara Kaup, and Robin K. Morris. 2000. Priming in sentence processing: intralexical spreading activation, schemas, and situation models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29.581-95.
45. Trueswell, John C., Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Christopher Kello. 1993. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19.528-53.
46. Van Berkum, Jos J. A., Colin M. Brown, Pienie Zwitserlood, Valesca Kooijman, and Peter Hagoort. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31.443-67.
47. Van Gompel, Roger P. G., Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, and Simon P. Liversedge. 2005. Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 522.284-307.
48. Vu, Huang, George Kellas, Eric Petersen, and Kim Metcalf. 2003. Situation-evoking stimuli, domain of reference, and the incremental interpretation of lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition 31.1302-15.
49. Warren, Tessa, and Kerry McConnell. 2007. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14.770-5.
50. Wicha, Nicole Y. Y., Eva M. Moreno, and Marta Kutas. 2004. Anticipating words and their gender: an eventrelated brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16.1272-88.
51. Zwaan, Rolf A., Robert A. Stanfield, and Richard H. Yaxley. 2002. Language comprehenders mentally represent the shape of objects. Psychological Science 13.168-71.