The time-course of lexical and structural processes in sentence comprehension

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 910-927

  Tily, Harry ^a   Fedorenko, Evelina ^b   Gibson, Edward ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Frequency; Parsing; Reading time; Sentence comprehension; Time course

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE TEST; LINGUISTICS; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS; TIME;

COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE TESTS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS; TIME FACTORS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 77951759854     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210903114866     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-27 [Computer Software]. Retrieved November 1, 2008 from http://lme4.r- forge.r-project.org/
3. Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279-362). New York: Wiley.
4. Boland, J. E. (1997). Resolving syntactic category ambiguities in discourse context: Probabilistic and discourse constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 588-615.
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, 391-411.
6. Brants, T., & Franz, A.(2006). Web 1T 5-gram Version 1 [Database Manual]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
7. Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273-317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Clifton, C., 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 (pp. 341-471). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
9. Clifton, C. J., Traxler, M., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317-334.
10. Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249-253.
11. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320-358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2006). The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 541-553.
13. Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S., Frank, M., & Gibson, E. (2009). The interaction of syntactic and lexical information sources in language processing: The case of the noun-verb ambiguity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 348-368.
15. 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, and Cognition, 16, 555-568.
16. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17. Ford, M. (1983). A method of obtaining measures of parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203-218.
18. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 727-796). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Linguistics Club.
20. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance. XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. 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.
22. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, B. (1997). The relative contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the interpretation of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
23. Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2865-2873.
24. Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161-187.
25. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
26. Gibson, E. (2006). The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 363-388.
27. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27(6), 1411-1423.
28. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425-430.
29. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29, 261-290.
30. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL (Vol. 2, pp. 159-166). Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
31. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processing in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
32. King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
33. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
34. Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 627-645.
35. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126-1177.
36. Luce, P., Pisoni, D., & Goldinger, S. (1990). Similarity neighbourhoods of spoken words. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing (pp. 122-147). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. MacDonald, M., & Christiansen, M. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35-54.
38. MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 103(4), 676-703.
39. MacWhinney, B., & Pleh, C. (1988). The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition, 29,95-141.
40. Mak, W., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50-68.
41. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing (pp. 148-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representations and natural language understanding (pp. 37-62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention & performance. XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3-36). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
44. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.
45. Meyer, A. A., & Schvaneveldt, S. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pair of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234.
46. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance. XII (pp. 601-681). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. R Core Development Team. (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved November 1, 2008 from http://www.R-project.org
48. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
49. Sheldon, A. (1974). On the role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.
50. 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, and Cognition, 24(6), 1521-1543.
51. Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 211-272.
52. Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161-172.
53. Traxler, M., Morris, R., & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69-90.
54. Traxler, M., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454-475.
55. Traxler, M., Williams, R., Blozis, S., & Morris, R. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204-224.
56. Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585.
57. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
58. Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
59. van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621-648). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
60. 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 and Language, 45(2), 225-258.
61. Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, G. Miller, & J. Bresnan (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.