Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 69, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 85-103

  Dillon, Brian ^a   Mishler, Alan ^b   Sloggett, Shayne ^a   Phillips, Colin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b Center for Advanced Study of Language   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

ACT R; Agreement; Memory retrieval; Reflexives; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878481582     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Altmann G.T.M. Regression-contingent analyses of eye movements during sentence processing: Reply to Rayner and Sereno. Memory & Cognition 1994, 22:286-290.
2. Anderson J.R. The adaptive character of thought 1990, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
3. Anderson J.R., Lebiere C. The atomic components of thought 1998, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
4. Badecker W., Straub K. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2002, 28:748-769.
5. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language 2008, 59:390-412.
6. Baker M. The syntax of agreement and concord 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Bates E., MacWhinney B. Functionalism and the competition model. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing 1989, 3-73.
8. Berwick R., Weinberg A. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance 1984, MIT Press, Cambridge.
9. Bock K., Miller C. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 1991, 23:45-93.
10. Chen Z., Jaeger L., Vasishth S. How structure-sensitive is the parser? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Current work in linguistic evidence: The fourth Tübingen meeting. Studies in generative grammar 2011, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. B. Stolterfoht, S. Featherston (Eds.).
11. Chomsky N., Lasnik H. The theory of principles and parameters. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research 1993, Vol. 1. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
12. Chomsky N., Miller G. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of mathematical psychology 1963, Vol. II. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
13. Clackson K., Felser C., Clahsen H. Children's processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language 2011, 65:128-144.
14. Clifton C., Frazier L., Deevy P. Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica 1999, 11:11-39.
15. Corbett G. Agreement 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Den Dikken M. "Pluringulars", pronouns, and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 2001, 18:19-41.
17. Dillon, B. (2011). Structured access in comprehension. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.
18. Drenhaus H., Frisch S., Saddy D. Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the backdoor. Linguistic evidence-empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives 2005, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. S. Kepser, M. Reis (Eds.).
19. Eberhard K., Cutting J., Bock K. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review 2005, 112:531-559.
20. Foraker S., McElree B. The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Availability versus accessibility. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:357-383.
21. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 1998, 68:1-76.
22. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Johnson M. Memory interference during sentence processing. Psychological Science 2001, 13:425-430.
23. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Levine W. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2002, 27:1411-1423.
24. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Johnson M. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 51:97-114.
25. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Johnson M., Lee Y. Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2006, 32:1304-1321.
26. Jackendoff R. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar 1972, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Jaeger F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:434-446.
28. Kayne R. Notes on English agreement. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages Bulletin 1989, 1:46-67.
29. Kennsion S., Trofe J. Comprehending pronouns: A role for word-specific gender stereotype information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2003, 32:355-378.
30. Kimball J., Aissen J. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 1971, 2:241-246.
31. King, J., Andrews, C., & Wagers, M. (2012). Do reflexives always find a good antecedent for themselves? Poster at the 25th annual meeting of the CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York, NY, March 14-16.
32. Kratzer A. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 2009, 40:187-237.
33. Lewis R., Vasishth S. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:375-419.
34. Lewis R., Vasishth S., Van Dyke J. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 2006, 10:447-454.
35. Martin A.E., McElree B. A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:879-906.
36. Martin A.E., McElree B. Memory operations that support sentence comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2009, 35:1231-1239.
37. McElree B. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29:111-123.
38. McElree B., Foraker S., Dyer L. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:67-91.
39. Nairne J. A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall. Memory & Cognition 1988, 16:343-352.
40. Nairne J. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition 1990, 18:251-269.
41. Nicol J., Swinney D. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1989, 18:5-19.
42. Osterhout L., Bersick M., McLaughlin J. Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory & Cognition 1997, 25:273-285.
43. Pearlmutter N., Garnsey S., Bock K. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41:427-456.
44. Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2011). Early retrieval interference in syntax-guided antecedent search. Oral presentation at the 24nd annual meeting of the CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Stanford, CA, March 24-26.
45. Phillips C., Wagers M., Lau E.F. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. Experiments at the interference, syntax and semantics 2011, Vol. 37. Emerald Publications, Bingley, UK.
46. Pollard C., Sag I. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 1992, 23:261-303.
47. Rayner K., Sereno S.C. Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression-contingent analyses. Memory & Cognition 1994, 22:281-285.
48. Solomon E.S., Pearlmutter N.J. Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology 2004, 49:1-46.
49. Steedman M. The syntactic process 2000, MIT Press, Cambridge.
50. Sturt P. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:542-562.
51. Van Dyke J.A. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:407-430.
52. Van Dyke J.A., Lewis R.L. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 49:285-316.
53. Van Dyke J.A., McElree B. Retrieval interference in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 2006, 55:157-166.
54. Van Dyke J.A., McElree B. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2011, 65:247-263.
55. Vasishth S., Brüssow S., Lewis R., Drenhaus H. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science 2008, 32:685-712.
56. Vigliocco G., Nicol J. Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear?. Cognition 1998, 68:13-29.
57. Vigliocco G., Butterworth B., Garrett M.F. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual factors. Cognition 1996, 61:261-298.
58. Wagers, M. (2008). The structure of memory meets memory for structure in linguistic cognition. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.
59. Wagers M., Lau E.F., Phillips C. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 61:206-237.
60. Wasow, T. (1972). Anaphoric relations in English. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
61. Xiang M., Dillon B., Phillips C. Illusory licensing across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language 2009, 108:40-55.