Event-Based Plausibility Immediately Influences On-Line Language Comprehension

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 913-934

  Matsuki, Kazunaga ^a   Chow, Tracy ^b   Hare, Mary ^c   Elman, Jeffrey L ^d   Scheepers, Christoph ^e   McRae, Ken ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b Howard Hughes Medical Institute   (United States)

^c BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Event knowledge; Plausibility; Selectional restrictions; Thematic roles

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; ONLINE SYSTEM; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; READING; REFERENCE VALUE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEMANTICS; STUDENT; TIME; UNIVERSITY;

ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; REACTION TIME; READING; REFERENCE VALUES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEMANTICS; STUDENTS; TIME FACTORS; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 79960340442     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0022964     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Altmann G.T.M., Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 1999, 73:247-264. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1.
2. Bicknell K., Elman J.L., Hare M., McRae K., Kutas M. Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory & Language 2010, 63:489-505. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.004.
3. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 113:787-821. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787.
4. Caplan D., Hildebrandt N., Waters G.S. Interaction of verb selectional restrictions, noun animacy, and syntactic form in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 1994, 9:549-585. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402131.
5. Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax 1965, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6. Chomsky N. Reflections on language 1975, Pantheon, New York, NY.
7. Clifton C., Staub A. Parallelism and competition in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics Compass 2008, 2:234-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00055.x.
8. Cottrell G.W. A connectionist approach to word sense disambiguation 1988, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
9. DeLong K.A., Urbach T.P., Kutas M. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8:1117-1121. doi: 10.1038/nn1504.
10. Filik R. Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 2008, 106:1038-1046.
11. Frazier L. Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1995, 24:437-468. doi: 10.1007/BF02143161.
12. Frisson S., Rayner K., Pickering M. Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2005, 31:862-877. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.862.
13. Garnsey S.M., Pearlmutter N., Myers E., Lotocky M.A. The contribution of verb-bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 37:58-93. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512.
14. Hardin J., Hilbe J. Generalized Estimating Equations 2003, Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, England.
15. Hare M., Elman J.L., Tabaczynski T., McRae K. The wind chilled the spectators, but the wine just chilled: Sense, structure, and sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:610-628. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01027.x.
16. Hare M., Jones M., Thomson C., Kelly S., McRae K. Activating event knowledge. Cognition 2009, 111:151-167.
17. Jackendoff R. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
18. Jaeger T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:434-446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.
19. Joseph H.S.S.L., Liversedge S.P., Blythe H.I., White S.J., Gathercole S.E., Rayner K. Children's and adults' processing of anomaly and implausibility during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61:708-723. doi: 10.1080/17470210701400657.
20. Just M.A., Carpenter P., Wooley J. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1982, 111:228-238. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228.
21. Kamide Y., Altmann G.T.M., Haywood S.L. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 49:133-156. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8.
22. Katz J.J. Semantic theory 1972, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
23. Knoeferle P., Crocker M.W., Scheepers C., Pickering M.J. The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition 2005, 95:95-127. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002.
24. McDonald S.A., Shillcock R.C. Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities. Psychological Science 2003, 14:648-652. doi: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1480.x.
25. McRae K., Boisvert S. Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1998, 24:558-572. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.558.
26. McRae K., Ferretti T.R., Amyote L. Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes 1997, 12:137-176. doi: 10.1080/016909697386835.
27. McRae K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Tanenhaus M.K. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 38:283-312. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2543.
28. Morris R.K. Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994, 20:92-103. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.92.
29. Murray W.S. The nature and time course of pragmatic plausibility effects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2006, 35:79-99. doi: 10.1007/s10936-005-9005-4.
30. Myers E.B., Blumstein S.E. Selectional restriction and semantic priming effects in normals and Broca's aphasics. Journal of Neurolinguistics 2005, 18:277-296. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2004.05.001.
31. Nelson D.L., McEvoy C.L., Schreiber T.A. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms 1998, http://www.usf.edu/freeassociation/.
32. Nirenburg S., Raskin V. Ontological Semantics 2004, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
33. Patson N.D., Warren T. Eye movements when reading implausible sentences: Investigating potential structural influences on semantic integration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2010, 63:1516-1532. doi: 10.1080/17470210903380822.
34. E-Prime (Version 1.2) [Computer software] 2006, Psychology Software Tools, Author, Sharpsburg, PA.
35. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:372-422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
36. Rayner K., Warren T., Juhasz B.J., Liversedge S.P. The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2004, 30:1290-1301. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290.
37. Rayner K., Well A.D. Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1996, 3:504-509.
38. Sanford A., Garrod S. Memory-based approaches and beyond. Discourse Processes 2005, 39:205-224. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_6.
39. Schlesinger I.M. Cognitive space and linguistic case 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, and New York, NY, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551321.
40. Sperber D., Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and cognition 1986, Blackwell, Oxford, England.
41. Staub A., Rayner R., Pollatsek A., Hyönä J., Majewski H. The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun-noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 33:1162-1169.
42. Stracuzzi, D., & Kinsey, J. (n.d.). EyeTrack (Version 0.7.9) [Computer Software]. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Psychology: Amherst, MA. Retrieved from http://www.psych.umass.edu/eyelab/software/.
43. Thornton R., MacDonald M.C. Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:740-759. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00003-2.
44. Tomasello M. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development 1992, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527678.
45. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Garnsey S.M. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 1994, 33:285-318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014.
46. Van Berkum J.J.A., Brown C.M., Zwitserlood P., Kooijman V., Hagoort P. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2005, 31:443-467. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443.
47. van Gompel R.P.G., Pickering M.J., Pearson J., Liversedge S.P. Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:284-307. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.003.
48. Vu H., Kellas G., Petersen E., Metcalf K. Situation-evoking stimuli, domain of reference, and the incremental interpretation of lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31:1302-1315. doi: 10.3758/BF03195813.
49. Warren, T. (in press). The influence of plausibility and anomaly on eye movements in reading. In I. Gilchrist, S. Everling, & S. Liversedge (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on eye movements.
50. Warren T., McConnell K. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:770-775. doi: 10.3758/BF03196835.
51. Warren T., McConnell K., Rayner K. Effects of context on eye movements when reading about plausible and impossible events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:1001-1010. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.1001.