Eye movements and semantic composition

The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and Beyond

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 33-50

  Pickering, Martin J ^a   Frisson, Steven ^b   McElree, Brian ^c   Traxler, Matthew J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906610829     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203509050     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.
2. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contrast. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
4. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, E. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15-67.
5. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
6. Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word recognition and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655.
7. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
9. Frazier, L., & Raynes, K. (1982).
10. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200.
11. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eyemovements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1366-1383.
12. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 149-171.
13. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
16. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
17. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 548-570.
18. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.
19. Liversedge, S. P. (1994). Referential context, relative clauses, and syntactic parsing. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
20. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55-75). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
21. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature, 244, 522-523.
22. McElree, B., Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2003). Enriched composition and sense extension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23. McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Reading time evidence for enriched semantic composition. Cognition, 78, B15-B25.
24. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 601-618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Pickering, M. J. (1999). Sentence comprehension. In S. Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 123-153). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
26. Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eyemovements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 556-573.
27. Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2003). Learning novel senses by rule: Why reading Needham can be easy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28. Piñango, M. M., Zurif, E., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). Real-time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 395-414.
29. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, 47-81.
30. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
32. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201.
33. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
34. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 21-49.
36. Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Making sense out of ambiguity:Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
37. Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382-386.
38. Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge- based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489-537.
39. Sereno S. C. (1995) Resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 582-595.
40. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
41. Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427-440.
42. Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 481-497.
43. Traxler, M. J., McElree, B., Williams, R., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). Context effects in coercion: evidence from eye-movements. Manuscript submitted for publication.
44. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton Jr., C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
45. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing:Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 530-547.
46. van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Making and revising syntactic commitments: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 283-307.