Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution

Three eye-tracking experiments investigated ambiguity resolution in sentences containing adjunct modifiers. The experiments tested readers' response to sentences that began with a noun phrase complex containing two nouns and a preposition (oforwith). A prepositional phrase or relative clause modified one of the noun phrases. The sentences were either temporarily or fully ambiguous as to which noun phrase was modified. The first and third experiments used semantic plausibility to disambiguate attachment (when disambiguation was possible). The second experiment used gender agreement to disambiguate attachment. The type of modifier, prepositional phrase versus relative clause, affected processing of the modifier as did the type of preposition in the noun phrase complex, theta-assigning versus non-theta-assigning. The data challenge the idea that syntactic ambiguity resolution is a form of lexical ambiguity resolution achieved via competition (MacDonald, 1994; MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; Spivey-Knowlton & Sedivy, 1995).

[1]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records , 1995 .

[2]  L. Frazier,et al.  Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs , 1995, Cognition.

[3]  K. Rayner,et al.  Discourse influences during parsing are delayed , 1992, Cognition.

[4]  M. MacDonald,et al.  Individual Differences and Probabilistic Constraints in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1995 .

[5]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Parsing in different languages , 1996 .

[6]  Donald Mitchell,et al.  Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. , 1987 .

[7]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[8]  C. Clifton,et al.  Relative Clause Interpretation Preferences in Spanish and English , 1993, Language and speech.

[9]  J. Pynte,et al.  Evidence for Early Closure Attachment on First Pass Reading Times in French , 1997 .

[10]  R. Job,et al.  AN INVESTIGATION OF LATE CLOSURE : THE ROLE OF SYNTAX, THEMATIC STRUCTURE,AND PRAGMATICS IN INITIAL AND FINAL INTERPRETATION , 1995 .

[11]  Shelia M. Kennison,et al.  Reading the WordsHer, His, Him:Implications for Parsing Principles Based on Frequency and on Structure , 1997 .

[12]  M. Just,et al.  Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  F. Cuetos,et al.  Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish , 1988, Cognition.

[14]  C. Clifton,et al.  Thematic roles in sentence parsing. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[15]  R. Job,et al.  Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy , 1993 .

[16]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[17]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[18]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[19]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies:An Eye-Tracking Study , 1996 .

[20]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading , 1988 .

[21]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes , 1989 .

[22]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[23]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[24]  M. A. Britt,et al.  Parsing in discourse: Context effects and their limits , 1992 .

[25]  K. Rayner,et al.  The psychology of reading , 1989 .

[26]  G. Waters,et al.  The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992) , 1996, Psychological review.

[27]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling Thematic and Discourse Context Effects with a Multiple Constraints Approach: Implications for the Architecture of the Language Comprehension System , 1999 .

[28]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Constituent Attachment and Thematic Role Assignment in Sentence Processing: Influences of Content-Based Expectations , 1988 .

[29]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[30]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[31]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Language processing in Spanish , 1997 .

[32]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  V. M. Holmes,et al.  The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity , 1985 .

[34]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

[35]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Modifier Attachment in Sentence Parsing: Evidence from Dutch , 1996 .

[36]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993 .

[37]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences , 1983 .

[38]  K. Rayner,et al.  Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences☆ , 1987 .

[39]  M. A. Britt,et al.  The Interaction of Referential Ambiguity and Argument Structure in the Parsing of Prepositional Phrases , 1994 .

[40]  M. Pickering,et al.  Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing , 1999 .

[41]  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.

[42]  M J Pickering,et al.  Case marking in the Parsing of Complement Sentences: Evidence from Eye Movements , 1996, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[43]  M. Pickering,et al.  Influence of Connectives on Language Comprehension: Eye tracking Evidence for Incremental Interpretation , 1997 .

[44]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb Argument Structure in Parsing and Interpretation: Evidence from wh-Questions , 1995 .

[45]  L Frazier,et al.  Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing , 1995, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[46]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints , 1995, Cognition.

[47]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[48]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[49]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  ON COMPREHENDING SENTENCES: SYNTACTIC PARSING STRATEGIES. , 1979 .

[50]  J. Trueswell.  THE ROLE OF LEXICAL FREQUENCY IN SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION , 1996 .

[51]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Syntactic Attachment and Anaphor Resolution: The Two Sides of Relative Clause Attachment , 1999 .

[52]  A. Garnham,et al.  Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context , 1992 .