SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247264.
  • Altmann, G. T. M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191238.
  • Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 6587.
  • Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Retrieved December 2011, from http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/
  • Battinich, W. R., & Levine, W. H. (2009). Production and processing of restrictive relative clauses in pragmatically-appropriate context. A poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society.
  • Branigan, H. P. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1-2, 116.
  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Cleland, A. A. (2007). Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue. Cognition, 104, 163197.
  • Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2006). The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain specific resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 541553.
  • Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. E. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348368.
  • Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203218.
  • Frank, M. C., Tily, H., Arnon, I., & Goldwater, S. (2010). Beyond transitional probabilities: Human learners impose a parsimony bias in statistical word segmentation. Paper presented at The Cognitive Science Society, Portland, OR.
  • Frisson, S., Rayner, K., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 862877.
  • Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161187.
  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 176.
  • Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantaz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 313354.
  • Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (In press). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes. DOI:10.1080/01690965.2010.515080.
  • Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 262268.
  • Gibson, E., & Wu, I. (In press). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes. DOI:10.1080/01690965.2010.536656.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 27, 14111423.
  • Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97114.
  • Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. (2006). Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(6), 13041321.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425430.
    Direct Link:
  • Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261290.
  • Grodner, D., Gibson, E., & Watson, D. (2005). The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 95, 275296.
  • Gundel, J., Hedberg, H., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274307.
  • Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL (Vol. 2, pp. 159166). NAACL.
  • Hawkins, J. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology, 30, 4761.
  • Holmes, V. M., & O’Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417430.
  • Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2003). Relative clause extraction complexity in Japanese. Poster presented at the 16th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  • Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2006). Processing Japanese relative clauses in context. Paper presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, CUNY, New York, March, 2006.
  • Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434446.
  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122149.
  • Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processing in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228238.
  • Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133156.
  • Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205225.
  • King, J. & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580602.
  • Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117129.
  • Kwon, N., Gordon, P. C., Lee, Y., & Kluender, R. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86, 546582.
  • Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 11261177.
  • Lewis, R., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375419.
  • Lewis, R., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447454.
  • Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 5068.
  • Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466490.
  • McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 6791.
  • Mecklinger, K., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477494.
  • Miyamoto, E., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 342355). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  • Munro, R., Bethard, S., Kuperman, V., Lai, V. T., Melnick, R., Potts, C., Schnoebelen, T., & Tily, H. (2010, June). Crowdsourcing and language studies: The new generation of linguistic data. NAACL workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon's Mechanical Turk, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 136141.
  • R Core Development Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  • Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 123.
  • Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348379.
  • Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., & Ku¨hn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499520.
  • Schustack, M. W., Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1987). Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 322340.
  • Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 7186.
  • Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 16321634.
  • Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. Miller & P. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication (pp. 217262). New York: Academic Press.
  • Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 6990.
  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285318.
  • Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 646688.
  • Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380393.
  • Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82(4), 767794.
  • Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79112.