Rational models of comprehension: Addressing the performance paradox

Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 363-380

  Crocker, Matthew W ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85082913510     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315084503-26     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.& Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129-144.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–517.
3. Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
4. Brants, T., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Probabilistic parsing and psychological plausibility, In Proceeding of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2000), Saarbrücken, Germany, 111–117.
5. Chater, N., Crocker, M. W., & Pickering, M. (1998). The rational analysis of inquiry: The case for parsing. In N. Chater & M. Oaksford (Eds.), Rational analysis of cognition (pp. 441–468). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157–205.
7. Church, K., & Patil, R. (1982). Coping with syntactic ambiguity or how to put the block in the box on the table. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8, 139–149.
8. Corley, S., & Crocker, M. (2000). The modular statistical hypothesis: Exploring lexical category ambiguity. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 135–160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Crocker, M. (1999). Mechanisms for sentence processing. In S. Garrod & M. Pickering (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 191–232). London: Psychology Press.
10. Crocker, M. (1996). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
11. Crocker, M., & Brants, T. (2000). Wide coverage probabilistic sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 647–669.
12. Crocker, M., & Corley, S. (2002). Modular architectures and statistical mechanisms: The case from lexical category disambiguation. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing (pp. 157–180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, CT.
14. Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 129–189). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Friederici, A. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.
17. Gibson, E. A. F. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
18. Grodner, D., Gibson, E., Argaman, V., & Babyonyshev, M. (2003). Against repair–based reanalysis in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 141–166.
19. Hale, J. (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 101–124.
20. Jurafsky, D. A (1996). Probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194.
21. Jurafsky, D. A. (2003). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Keller, F. (2003). A probabilistic parser as a model of global processing difficulty. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 646–651). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M. (in press). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition.
24. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
25. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modelling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.
26. Manning, C., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
28. Marcus, M. P. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Norris, D. (1999). Computational psycholinguistics. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Pickering, M., & Traxler, M. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eve-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 940–961.
31. Pickering, M., Traxler, M., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against likelihood. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475.
32. Pritchett, B. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel, I. (in press). On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during language comprehension. Lingua.
34. Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 295–322.
35. Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross–linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449–494.
36. Sturt, P., Pickering M., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136–150.
37. Sturt, P., Costa, F., Lombardo, V., & Frasconi, P. (2003). Learning first–pass structural attachment preferences with dynamic grammars and recursive neural networks. Cognition, 88, 133–169.
38. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M. & Sedivy, J. E. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 632–634.
39. Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143.