Journal of Memory and Language
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] J. Kimball. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .
[2] Lyn Frazier,et al. ON COMPREHENDING SENTENCES: SYNTACTIC PARSING STRATEGIES. , 1979 .
[3] E. Wanner. The ATN and the sausage machine: Which one is baloney? , 1980, Cognition.
[4] Lyn Frazier,et al. Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? , 1980, Cognition.
[5] K. Rayner,et al. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.
[6] J. Woolley,et al. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.
[7] Mitchell P. Marcus,et al. D-Theory: Talking about Talking about Trees , 1983, ACL.
[8] V. M. Holmes,et al. The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity , 1985 .
[9] C. Clifton,et al. The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .
[10] K. Rayner,et al. Parsing Temporarily Ambiguous Complements , 1987 .
[11] Lyn Frazier,et al. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .
[12] Bradley L. Pritchett. Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing , 1988 .
[13] C. Reid,et al. Parsing Complements: Comments on the Generality of the Principle of Minimal Attachment , 1989 .
[14] Steven Abney,et al. A computational model of human parsing , 1989 .
[15] J. Henderson,et al. Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[16] John C. Trueswell,et al. Tense, Temporal Context, and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. , 1991 .
[17] M. Just,et al. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.
[18] Christopher T. Kello,et al. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[19] M K Tanenhaus,et al. A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference , 1994, Journal of psycholinguistic research.
[20] Suzanne Stevenson,et al. Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation , 1994 .
[21] M. MacDonald,et al. Individual Differences and Probabilistic Constraints in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1995 .
[22] G. Hickok,et al. Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism , 1996, Cognition.
[23] Daniel Jurafsky,et al. A Probabilistic Model of Lexical and Access and Disambiguation , 1996 .
[24] Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al. Parsing in a Dynamical System: An Attractor-based Account of the Interaction of Lexical and Structural Constraints in Sentence Processing , 1997 .
[25] E. Gibson,et al. On the Strength of the Local Attachment Preference , 1997 .
[26] Susan M. Garnsey,et al. The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .
[27] Lyn Frazier,et al. Sentence Reanalysis, and Visibility , 1998 .
[28] Suzanne Stevenson,et al. Parsing as Incremental Restructuring , 1998 .
[29] E. Gibson. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.
[30] Alan Garnham,et al. Late Closure in Context , 1998 .
[31] Suzanne Ava Stevenson. A Competitve Attachment Model for Resolving Syntactic Ambiguities in Natural Language Parsing , 1998 .
[32] David Andrew Schneider,et al. Parsing and incrementality , 1999 .
[33] M. Pickering,et al. Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension , 1999 .
[34] G. Kempen,et al. Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar , 2000, Cognition.
[35] Matthew W. Crocker,et al. The Preservation of Structure in Language Comprehension: Is Reanalysis the Last Resort? , 2001 .