Phonological Typicality Influences Sentence Processing in Predictive Contexts: Reply to Staub, Grant, Clifton, and Rayner (2009)

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1318-1325

  Farmer, Thomas A ^a   Monaghan, Padraic ^b   Misyak, Jennifer B ^c   Christiansen, Morten H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c Cornell University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Language processing; Learning; Lexical categories; Sentence comprehension

Indexed keywords

EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; NOTE; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

EYE MOVEMENTS; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 80052852633     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0023063     Document Type: Note

References (35)

1. Altmann G.T.M. Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1998, 2:146-152. 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01153-X.
2. Altmann G.T.M., Garnham A., Dennis Y. Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:685-712. 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90035-V.
3. Baayen R.H. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
4. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed effects modeling with crossed random factors for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
5. Cassidy K.W., Kelly M.H. Children's use of phonology to infer grammatical class in vocabulary learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8:519-523. 10.3758/BF03196187.
6. Christiansen M.H., Monaghan P. Discovering verbs through multiple-cue integration. Action meets word: How children learn verbs 2006, 88-109. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170009.003.0004. K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff (Eds.).
7. Cohen J., MacWhinney B., Flatt M., Provost J. PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 1993, 25:257-271. 10.3758/BF03204507.
8. 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. 10.1038/nn1504.
9. Dikker S., Rabagliati H., Farmer T.A., Pylkkanen L. Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science 2010, 21:629-634. 10.1177/0956797610367751.
10. Dikker S., Rabagliati H., Pylkkanen L. Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition 2009, 110:293-321. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008.
11. Elman J.L., Hare M., McRae K. Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates 2004, 111-138. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. M. Tomasello, D.I. Slobin (Eds.).
12. Farmer T.A., Christiansen M.H., Monaghan P. Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 2006, 103:12203-12208. 10.1073/pnas.0602173103.
13. Federmeier K.D. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:491-505. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x.
14. Fine A., Qian T., Jaeger T.F., Jacobs R. Syntactic adaptation in language comprehension. Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics 2010, 18-26. Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden.
15. Fitneva S.A., Christiansen M.H., Monaghan P. From sound to syntax: Phonological constraints on children's lexical categorization of new words. Journal of Child Language 2009, 36:967-997. 10.1017/S0305000908009252.
16. Garnsey S.M., Pearlmutter N.J., Myers E., Lotocky M.A. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 37:58-93. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512.
17. Hagoort P. Reflections on the neurobiology of syntax. Biological foundations and origin of syntax 2009, 279-298. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. D. Bickerton, E. Szathmáry (Eds.).
18. Hahne A., Friederici A.D. Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11:194-205. 10.1162/089892999563328.
19. Hinojosa J.A., Moreno E.M., Casado P., Muñoz F., Pozo M.A. Syntactic expectancy: An event-related potentials study. Neuroscience Letters 2005, 378:34-39. 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.12.010.
20. Kelly M.H. Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review 1992, 99:349-364. 10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.349.
21. Monaghan P., Christiansen M.H., Chater N. The phonological-distributional coherence hypothesis: Cross-linguistic evidence in language acquisition. Cognitive Psychology 2007, 55:259-305. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.12.001.
22. Monaghan P., Christiansen M.H., Farmer T.A., Fitneva S.A. Measures of phonological typicality: Robust coherence and psychological validity. The Mental Lexicon 2010, 5:281-299.
23. Perruchet P., Pacton S. Implicit learning and statistical learning: One phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:233-238. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.006.
24. Pickering M.J., Garrod S. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2007, 11:105-110. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002.
25. Pothos E.M. Theories of artificial grammar learning. Psychological Bulletin 2007, 133:227-244. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.227.
26. Rayner K., Ashby J., Pollatsek A., Reichle E.D. The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2004, 30:720-732. 10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720.
27. R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2007, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, [Software]. http://www.r-project.org.
28. Snedeker J., Yuan S. Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:574-608. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.08.001.
29. Spivey M.J., Tanenhaus M.K., Eberhard K.M., Sedivy J.C. Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology 2002, 45:447-481. 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00503-0.
30. Staub A., Clifton C. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either... or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2006, 32:425-436. 10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.425.
31. Staub A., Grant M., Clifton C., Rayner K. Phonological typicality does not influence fixation durations in normal reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2009, 35:806-814. 10.1037/a0015123.
32. Tanenhaus M.K., Hare M. Phonological typicality and sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2007, 11:93-95. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.010.
33. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1993, 19:528-553. 10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.528.
34. Van Berkum J.J., 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. 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443.
35. Wicha N.Y.Y., Moreno E.M., Kutas M. Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16:1272-1288. 10.1162/0898929041920487.