Discourse expectations and relative clause processing

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 479-508

  Roland, Douglas ^a   Mauner, Gail ^b   O'Meara, Carolyn ^a,c   Yun, Hongoak ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Constrain based approach; Corpus analysis; Discourse; Relative clause; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857654844     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1974, 19:716-723.
2. Almor A. Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review 1999, 106:748-765.
3. Altmann G., Steedman M. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 1988, 30:191-238.
4. Baayen R.H. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R 2008, Cambridge University Press.
5. Charniak E. Parsing with context free grammars and word statistics (No. CS-95-28) 1995, Brown University Providence, Rhode Island.
6. Charniak E. Statistical parsing with a context-free grammar and word statistics. Proceedings of the fourteenth national conference on artificial intelligence 1997, 598-603. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park.
7. Crain S., Steedman M.J. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives 1985, 320-358. Cambridge University Press. D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, A. Zwicky (Eds.).
8. Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2007). Eye-tracking evidence for integration cost effects in corpus data. In Proceedings of the 29th meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci-07).
9. Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2009). A computational model of prediction in human parsing: Unifying locality and surprisal effects. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society.
10. Demberg, V., Keller, F., & Levy, R. (2011). Explaining relative clause asymmetry. Poster presented at the 24th annual meeting of the CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Stanford University, March 24-26, 2011.
11. Dubey, A. (2010). The influence of discourse on syntax: A psycholinguistic model of sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 11-16 July 2010 (pp. 1179-1188).
12. Dubey, A., Keller, F., & Sturt, P. (2011). A model of discourse predictions in human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 304-312).
13. Forster K.I. What is F2 good for?. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:389.
14. Fox B.A., Thompson S.A. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 1990, 66:297-316.
15. Gennari S.P., MacDonald M.C. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:161-187.
16. Gennari S.P., MacDonald M.C. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition 2009, 111:1-23.
17. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 1998, 68:1-76.
18. Gibson E. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, language, brain 2000, 95-126. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, W. O'Neil (Eds.).
19. Gordon P.C., Grosz B.J., Gilliom L.A. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1993, 17:311-347.
20. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Johnson M. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2001, 27:1411-1423.
21. Grodner D., Gibson E. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentenial complexity. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:261-290.
22. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics.
23. Hale J. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2003, 32:101-123.
24. Hale J. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 2006, 30:643-672.
25. Heider, P., Dery, J., & Roland, D. (2011). " It" object relatives are also easier: Evidence against a fine-grained frequency account. Paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the linguistic society of America, January 6-9, 2011, Pittsburgh, PA.
26. Johnson, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2009). The role of salience of noun phrases in object-extracted relative clauses. Poster presented at the 2009 CUNY sentence processing conference, Davis, CA.
27. Kaiser E., Trueswell J.C. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 2004, 94:113-147.
28. Kennedy A., Pynte J. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research 2005, 45:153-168.
29. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106:1126-1177.
30. Mak W.M., Vonk W., Schriefers H. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 47:50-68.
31. Mak W.M., Vonk W., Schriefers H. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 2006, 54:466-490.
32. Mak W.M., Vonk W., Schriefers H. Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:170-181.
33. Marcus M.P., Santorini B., Marcinkiewicz M.A., Taylor A. Treebank-3 1999, Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
34. Reali F., Christiansen M.H. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 57:1-23.
35. Reali F., Christiansen M.H. Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:161-170.
36. Roland D., Dick F., Elman J.L. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 57:348-379.
37. Staub A. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition 2010, 116:71-86.
38. Traxler M.J., Morris R.K., Seely R.E. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 47:69-90.
39. Warren T., Gibson E. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 2002, 85:79-112.
40. Wells J.B., Christiansen M.H., Race D.S., Acheson D.J., MacDonald M.C. Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 58:250-271.