Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory

Cognition

Volumn 157, Issue , 2016, Pages 321-339

  Parker, Dan ^a   Phillips, Colin ^b  

^a Dept of Economics and Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Agreement; Binding; Linguistic illusions; Memory; Negative polarity; Representation; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ILLUSION; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SEMANTICS; TIME; VISUAL SYSTEM; COMPREHENSION;

COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; JUDGMENT; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84990878484     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.016     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Abney, S.P., Parsing by chunks. Berwick, R., Abney, S.P., Tenny, C., (eds.) Principle-based parsing: Computation and psycholinguistics, 1991, Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, 257–278.
2. Anderson, J.R., The adaptive character of thought. 1990, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
3. Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D., Bates, D., Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59 (2008), 390–412.
4. Badecker, W., Lewis, R., A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: Agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval. Talk at the 20th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, 2007, University of California, San Diego.
5. Barr, D.J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., Tily, H.J., Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 2013, 328.
6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4, 2011.
7. Box, G.E., Cox, D.R., An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 26 (1964), 211–252.
8. Bransford, J.D., Franks, J.J., The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology 2 (1971), 331–350.
9. Chierchia, G., Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (2006), 535–590.
10. Chun, M.M., Potter, M.C., A two-stage model for multiple target detection in RSVP. Jounral of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21 (2000), 109–127.
11. Clifton, C., Frazier, L., Deevy, P., Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica 11 (1999), 11–39.
12. Dillon, B., Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., Pushed aside: Parentheticals, memory, and processing. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 29 (2014), 483–498.
13. Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Slogget, S., Phillips, C., Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 69 (2013), 85–103.
14. Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., Frisch, S., Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the backdoor. Kepser, S., Reis, M., (eds.) Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, 2005, de Gruyter, Berlin, 145–165.
15. Eberhard, K., Cutting, J., Bock, K., Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review 112 (2005), 531–559.
16. Fodor, J.A., Bever, T., Garrett, J., The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. 1974, McGraw-HIll, New York.
17. Frazier, L., Fodor, J.D., The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6 (1978), 291–325.
18. Gelman, A., Hill, J., Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Giannakidou, A., Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., Portner, P., (eds.) Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 2011, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1660–1712.
20. Gibson, E., Paintadosi, S.T., Brink, K., Bergen, L., Lim, E., Saxe, R., A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science 24:7 (2013), 1079–1088.
21. Gordon, P.C., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M., Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26 (2001), 1411–1423.
22. Holcombe, A.O., Clifford, C.W.G., Failures to bind spatially coincident features: Comment on Di Lollo. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 2012, 402.
23. Horn, L. R. (2010). Polarity after the Thirty Years War: What's the point? Semantics Seminar, Rutgers University. November 1.
24. Israel, M., The pragmatics of polarity. Horn, L., Ward, G., (eds.) The handbook of pragmatics, 2004, Blackwell, Oxford, 701–723.
25. Kadmon, N., Landman, F., Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (1993), 353–422.
26. Kanerva, P., Fully distributed representation. Proceedings of the 1997 real world computing symposium, 1997, Real World Computing Partnership, Tsukuba-city, Japan, 358–365.
27. Kanerva, P., The spatter code for encoding concepts at many levels. Marinaro, M., Morasso, P.G., (eds.) Proceedings of the international conference on artificial neural networks (ICANN 1994), 1994, Springer-Verlag, 226–229.
28. Kanerva, P., Binary spatter-coding of ordered K-tuples. von der Malsburg, C., von Seelen, W., Vorbruggen, J.C., Sendhoff, B., (eds.) Proceedings of the international conference on artificial neural networks (ICANN 1996), 1996, Springer, Berlin, 869–873.
29. Kimball, J., Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2 (1973), 15–47.
30. Kohonen, T., Content-addressable memories. 1980, Springer-Verlag, Berlin; New York.
31. Krifka, M., The semantics and pragmatics of weak and strong polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25 (1995), 209–257.
32. Kush, D., Lidz, J., Phillips, C., Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language 82 (2015), 18–40.
33. Ladusaw, W.A., Negative polarity items as inherent scope relations. (Dissertation/Thesis), 2008, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
34. Lago, S., Shalom, D., Sigman, M., Lau, E., Phillips, C., Agreement processes in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 82 (2015), 133–149.
35. Levy, R. (2008). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Honolulu (pp. 234–243).
36. Lewis, S., Phillips, C., Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44 (2015), 27–46.
37. Lewis, R.L., Vasishth, S., An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29 (2005), 375–419.
38. Lewis, R.L., Vasishth, S., Van Dyke, J.A., Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10 (2006), 447–454.
39. Linebarger, M., Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10 (1987), 325–387.
40. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L.K., The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8 (1980), 1–71.
41. Nieuwland, M.S., Kuperberg, G.R., When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science 19 (2008), 1213–1218.
42. Pearlmutter, N., Garnsey, S., Bock, K., Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 41 (1999), 427–456.
43. Phillips, C., Wagers, M., Lau, E.F., Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. Runner, J., (eds.) Experiments at the interfaces, Vol. 37, 2011, Emerald Publications, Bingley, UK, 147–180.
44. Plate, T., Distributed representations and nested compositional structure. (Dissertation/Thesis), 1994, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
45. Plate, T., Holographic reduced representation: Distributed representation of cognitive structure. 2003, CSLI, Stanford.
46. Plate, T., Holographic reduced representations: Convolution algebra for compositional distributed representations. Mylopoulos, J., Reiter, R., (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), 1991, Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 30–35.
47. Pollard, C., Sag, I.A., Head-driven phrase structure grammar. 1994, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
48. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J., A comprehensive grammar of the english language. 1985, Longman, New York.
49. R Development Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2014, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
50. Rachkovskij, D.A., Kussel, E.M., Binding and normalization of binary sparse distributed representations by context-dependent thinning. Neural Computation 2 (2001), 411–452.
51. Sachs, J.S., Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics 2 (1967), 437–442.
52. Smolensky, P., Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist networks. Artificial Intelligence 46 (1990), 159–216.
53. Staub, A., On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 60 (2009), 308–327.
54. Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., Richardson, D., Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 50 (2004), 355–370.
55. Tanner, D., Nicol, J., Brehm, L., The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language 76 (2014), 195–215.
56. Townsend, D.J., Bever, T.G., Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
57. Treisman, A.M., Gelade, G., A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 12 (1980), 97–136.
58. Treisman, A., Schmidt, H., Illusory conjunctions in the percpetion of objects. Cognitive Psychology 14 (1982), 107–141.
59. Treisman, A., The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 6 (1996), 171–178.
60. Treisman, A., Sykes, M., Gelade, G., Selective attention and stimulus integration. Dornica, S., (eds.) Attention and performance VI: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on attention and performance, 1977, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 333–361.
61. Urbach, T.P., Delong, K.A., Kutas, M., Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more or less. Journal of Memory and Language 83 (2015), 79–96.
62. Van Dyke, J.A., McElree, B., Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55 (2006), 157–166.
63. Van Dyke, J.A., McElree, B., Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65 (2011), 247–263.
64. Vasishth, S., Broe, M., The foundations of statistics: A simulation-based approach. 2011, Springer, Berlin.
65. Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R.L., Drenhaus, H., Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science 32 (2008), 685–712.
66. Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Guo, G., Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8.
67. Venables, W.N., Ripley, B.D., Modern applied statistics with S-plus. 1999, Springer, New York.
68. Wagers, M., The structure of memory meets memory for structure in linguistic cognition. (Dissertation/Thesis), 2008, University of Maryland.
69. Wagers, M., Lau, E.F., Phillips, C., Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61 (2009), 206–237.
70. Whitney, C.S., Investigations into the neural basis of structured representations. (Dissertation/Thesis), 2008, University of Maryland.
71. Wolfe, J. (2007). Guided Search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. In W.Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems, Oxford, New York (pp. 99–119).
72. Wolfe, J., The binding problem lives on: Comment on Di Lollo. Trends in Cognitive Science 16 (2012), 307–308.
73. Xiang, M., Dillon, B.W., Phillips, C., Testing the strength of the spurious licensing effect for negative polarity items. Talk at the 19th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New york, 2006.
74. Xiang, M., Dillon, B., Phillips, C., Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain & Language 108 (2009), 40–55.
75. Xiang, M., Grove, J., Giannakidou, A., Dependency dependent interference: NPI interference, agreement attraction, and global pragmatic inferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 2013.
76. Yanilmaz, A., Drury, J., Intrusion effects on NPI licensing in Turkish: Does the parser ignore the grammar?. Poster at the 27th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, 2014, The Ohio State University.