Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Getting There (Slowly)

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The general foundations for a theory of human sentence processing and the basic goals and questions of the 1960s are argued to be solid and still very relevant today, even if the particular processing model of the time (the clausal model) does not hold up. Today there is considerable agreement that sentence processing is both fast and grammatically controlled from the outset, and that minimal structure and recent attachments are favored across a diverse range of languages. Parsing is not purely bottom-up but instead allows phrases to be postulated before all daughters have been parsed; it works similarly for head-initial and head-final languages. The parser takes as input a rich prosodic/intonational representation which influences processing in ways that extend far beyond use of intonational boundaries as local (juncture) cues. It is argued that psycholinguistic evidence disconfirms the use of prepackaged fully articulated X′ templates for identifying phrase structure, instead supporting the extended projections of Grimshaw (1991). Further, considerable evidence shows that the processor respects grammatical distinctions among types of dependencies, as indicated by differential processing effects for antecedent-government chains versus binding relations, by the processing difficulty of composite dependencies involving more than one grammatical type of dependency, and by distinctions between deep and surface anaphora. The central problem for future theories of sentence processing is claimed to be the development of theories of sentence interpretation. Various possible approaches are discussed, including parallel computation of alternatives with subsequent selection, a task-driven interpretive system, and underspecification. The question is raised whether sentence-level psycholinguistics is in the middle of a paradigm shift from models with symbolic representations and an intrinsically serial (Von Neumann) architecture to constraint-satisfaction/connectionist models with inherently parallel architectures. Reasons are offered for rejecting current constraint-satisfaction models, including lack of supporting evidence discriminating between constraint-satisfaction and “conventional” models, serious problems with the use of prepackaged X′ templates for identifying phrase structure (the only proposal to date for handling syntactic structures in constraint-based models) and an inability to deal with cross-language generalizations. Pure connectionist models are unlikely to fare better in the future for two reasons. They are apparently unable to handle restricted universal quantification (Marcus, 1998)which clearly lies within the capacity of the human sentence processor. Further, competition between alternatives lies at the very heart of such models. Maximal competition should occur in processing fully ambiguous sentences and thus they are predicted to take longer to process than biased or temporarily ambiguous ones (Frazier & Clifton, 1997). But the empirical evidence suggests that fully ambiguous sentences are not systematically harder to process than their disambiguated counterparts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M. (in press). On reanalysis: Evidence from German. In B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny (eds) Cognitive parsing in german: An introduction. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Bader, M., & Lasser, I. (1994). German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G. (1973). Serial position and response biases do not account for the effect of syntactic structure on the location of brief noises during sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 287-288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G., Garrett, M. F., & Hurtig, R. (1973). Ambiguity increases complexity of perceptually incomplete clauses. Memory & Cognition, 1, 279-286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G., Lackner, J. R., & Kirk, R. (1969). The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 5, 225-231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G., & Langendoen, D. T. (1971). A dynamic model of the evolution of language. Linguistics Inquiry, 2, 433-463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistics Inquiry, 19, 35-43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broderick, K. (1996). Focus and adjunct extraction. Poster presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New York. March, 1996.

  • Cairns, H. S. (1970). Ambiguous sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

  • Caplan, D. (1972). Clause boundaries and recognition latencies for words in sentences. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 73-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, S., & Waters, G. S. (1991). Short-term memory and language comprehension: A critical review of the neuropsychological literature. In G. Vallas & T. Shallice (Eds.), Neuropsychological impairments of short-term memory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G., & Tanenhaus, M. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 21: Thematic relations. London, England: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, M. (1992). Estrategias de analisis en el procesamiento de frases: Cierre temprano versus cierre tardio. Cognitiva, 4, 3-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C, Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353-372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. (1992). Types of A' dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C. (in press). Evaluating models of human sentence processing. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering and C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Clifton, C., Speer, S. & Abney, S. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251-271.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, M. (1992). A logical model of competence and performance in the human sentence processor. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh. (Available as Human Communications Research Centre. Publication RP34.)

  • Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M. (1996). Syntactic analysis in sentence Comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor) Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 25, 117-134.

  • Eberhard, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Sedivy, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409-436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, R. (1977). On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 35-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., & Bever, T. G. (1965). The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 414-420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1989). Empty categories in language processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI155-210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D., & Ferrieira, F. (Eds.). (in press). Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407-434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, K. (1966). Left to right processes in the construction of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 285-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, K. (1968). Sentence completion in left-and right-branching languages. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 296-299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, K. (1970). Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Perception and Psychophysica, 8, 215-221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, K. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, K. I., & Ryder, L. A. (1971). Perceiving the structure and meaning of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 285-296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, D. J. (1970). Some effects of ambiguity upon sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 699-706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Frazier, L. (1987a). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1987b). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519-560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1990). Exploring the architecture of the language system. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1995a). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 24, 437-468.

  • Frazier, L. (1995b). Representational issues in psycholinguistics. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition (vol. 11). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (in press). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammars and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93-126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (in press). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: (in press) Kluwer.

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

  • Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, I. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap-filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Languages, 29, 181-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 25, 157-176.

  • Gibson, E. A. F. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Gibson, E. A. F., & Hickok, G. (1993). Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 147-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. A. F., Pearlmutter, N. J., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. A. F., Schutze, C. T. & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 25, 25-58.

  • Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorrell, P. (1996). Parsing theory and phrase-order variation in German V2 clauses. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 25, 135-154.

  • Grimshaw, J. (1991). Extended projections. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.

  • Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. A. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistics Inquiry, 7, 391-428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C. & Strube, G. (1993). First analysis, reanalysis and repair. Freiburg, Germany: Institut für Informatik und Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickok, G., & Avrutin, S. (1996). Comprehension of wh-questions in two Broca's aphasics. Brain and Language, 52, 314-327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. F. (1965). The psychological reality of phrase structure rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 469-475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B. (in press). Language users as problem solvers: Just what ambiguity do they solve? In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, S. (1997). The resolution of the dative ambiguity in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 265-273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing. Evidence from German. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzman, H., & MacDonald, M. E. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope and ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243-279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackner, J. R., & Garrett, M. F. (1973). Resolving ambiguity: Effects of biasing context in the unattended ear. Cognition, 2, 359-372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, P., & Broadbent, D. E. (1960). Perception of sequence in auditory events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 162-170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehiste, I. (1972). Timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 2018-2024.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 25, 93-116.

  • Love, T., & Swinney, D. (1996). Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 25, 5-24.

  • MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-202.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Just, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (1998). Cognition, variables and connectionism. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts.

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature, 244, 522-523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 8, 1-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhaus, K., & Friederici, A. (1995). The processing of relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 23, 477-494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. II). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & Isard, S. (1963). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 217-228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1996). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. In J. L. Nicol (special guest editor), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 24, 469-488.

  • Murphy, G. (1990). Noun phase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 259-288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagai, N. (1995). Constraints on topics and their gaps: From a parsing perspective. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, H. N., Shapiro, L. P., & Nawy, R. (1994). Prosody and the processing of filler-gap sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 473-486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 155-170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni, W., Braze, D., Conway, L., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). A fork in the garden path. Poster presented at the Ninth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New York.

  • Nicol, J. (guest editor). (1996). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Special Issue on Prosody), 25.

  • Onishi, K. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory & Cognition, 21, 763-772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 521-542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229-259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Beckman, M. E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M. C., & Faulconer, B. A. (1979). Understanding noun phases. Journal of Verbal and Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 509-522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B., & Whitman, J. (1995). Syntactic representation and interpretive preference. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 251-270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rado, J. (1994, March). Processing moved antecedents. Poster presented at the Seventh Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.

  • Radó, J. (1998). Processing Hungarian: The role of topic and focus in language comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1992). Ellipsis redundancy and reduction reduncancy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.

  • Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Patterson, K. (1994). Psychological studies of quantifiers. Journal of Semantics, 10, 153-170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, A. (1998). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., & Kuhn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499-520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutze, C., & Gibson, E. (1996). Argument preference in English PP attachment. Paper presented at a meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.

  • Sekerina, I. (1997) The syntax and processing of scrambling constructions in Russian. The City University of New York doctoral dissertation.

  • Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stabler, E. P. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 295-322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, C., & Gough, P. (1967). Constituent search in immediate memory for sentences. Proceedings of the Midwestern Psychology Association.

  • Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 227-246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. (1995, March). Monotonic parsing and reanalysis. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.

  • Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. (1990). Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 257-280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454-475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers and indefinites. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Van Lehn, K. A. (1978). Determining the scope of English quantifiers. Unpublished master's thesis, MIT.

  • von Fintel, Kai. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Wanner, E. (1968). On remembering, forgetting and understanding sentences: A study of the deep structure hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1971). On understanding relative clauses. Unpublished paper, Harvard University.

  • Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, G., Sproat, R., & McKoon, G. (1991). A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language, 67, 439-473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, D. (Guest editor). (1996). Language and Cognitive Processes (Special Issue on Prosody and Parsing. Volume II (v2)).

  • Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 24, 342-356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yngve, V. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444-466.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, 01003-7130

    Lyn Frazier

Authors
  1. Lyn Frazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frazier, L. Getting There (Slowly). J Psycholinguist Res 27, 123–146 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023241830722

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023241830722

Keywords

Search

Navigation