Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish

One experiment provided evidence in support of Gibson, Pearlmutter, Canseco-Gonzalez, and Hickok’s (1996) claim that a recency preference applies to Spanish relative clause attachments, contrary to the claim made by Cuetos and Mitchell (1988). Spanish speakers read stimuli involving either two or three potential attachment sites in which the same lexical content of the two-site conditions appeared in a different structural configuration in the three-site conditions. High attachment was easier than low attachment when only two sites were present, but low attachment was preferred over high attachment, which was in turn preferred over middle attachment, when three sites were present. The experiment replicated earlier results and showed that (1) attachment preferences are determined in part by a preference to attach recently/low, and (2) lexical biases are insufficient to explain attachment preferences.

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

[2]  Carson T. Schütze,et al.  Disambiguation Preferences in Noun Phrase Conjunction Do Not Mirror Corpus Frequency , 1999 .

[3]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[4]  Edward Gibson,et al.  A computational theory of human linguistic processing: memory limitations and processing breakdown , 1991 .

[5]  Don C. Mitchell,et al.  Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? , 1990 .

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

[7]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Structural Ambiguity and Lexical Relations , 1991, ACL.

[8]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Argumenthood and English Prepositional Phrase Attachment , 1999 .

[9]  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 .

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

[11]  J. Kimball Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

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

[13]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[14]  M. Gardner,et al.  USING CONFIDENCE INTERVALS , 1987, The Lancet.

[15]  Steven P. Abney,et al.  Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. , 1991 .

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

[17]  Carson T. Schütze,et al.  The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  G. Hickok,et al.  Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism , 1996, Cognition.

[19]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

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

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

[22]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

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

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

[25]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[27]  J. Woolley,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[28]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  The Processing of Locally Ambiguous Relative Clauses in German , 1995 .

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

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

[31]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .

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

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

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

[35]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

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

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

[38]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Syntactic processing: Evidence from dutch , 1987 .

[39]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? , 1990 .