Recency in verb phrase attachment.

Four experiments investigated attachment preferences in constructions involving 3 verb phrases (VPs) followed by an attaching modifier. Readers preferred attachment to the most recent (lowest) VP site overall and preferred to attach the modifier to the middle VP over the highest VP, demonstrating a monotonic recency-based preference ordering. This pattern could not be attributed to lexical or plausibility-based preferences. The results contrast with the pattern for relative clause attachment into 3 potential noun phrase sites, where the preference ordering is nonmonotonic (e.g., E. Gibson, N. J. Pearlmutter, E. Canseco-Gonzalez, & G. Hickok, 1996), and support the multiple-constraint theory described by E. Gibson and N. J. Pearlmutter (1998), which proposes that recency/locality and a secondary factor, predicate proximity, combine with lexical, grammatical, prosodic, and contextual constraints to determine attachment preferences.

[1]  N J Pearlmutter,et al.  Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[2]  M. MacDonald,et al.  Accounting for Crosslinguistic Variation : A Constraint-Based Perspective , 2022 .

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

[4]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Agreement Processes in Sentence Comprehension , 1999 .

[5]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Learning To Parse? , 1998 .

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

[7]  N. Pearlmutter,et al.  Constraints on sentence comprehension , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  Takako Aikawa,et al.  A U-shaped Relative Clause Attachment Preference in Japanese , 1999 .

[9]  Arnold L. Glass,et al.  Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences , 1987 .

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

[11]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution In German , 1998 .

[12]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Challenges To Recent Theories Of Crosslinguistic Variation In Parsing: Evidence From Dutch , 1998 .

[13]  Murdock,et al.  The serial position effect of free recall , 1962 .

[14]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions , 1984 .

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

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

[17]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[18]  Richard L. Lewis.  Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[19]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[20]  M. Kjelgaard,et al.  Prosodic Facilitation and Interference in the Resolution of Temporary Syntactic Closure Ambiguity , 1999 .

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

[22]  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 .

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

[24]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.

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

[26]  J. Henderson,et al.  Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences ☆ , 1991 .

[27]  Alan Garnham,et al.  Late Closure in Context , 1998 .

[28]  Bradley L. Pritchett.  Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing , 1988 .

[29]  C. Clifton,et al.  Focus in Relative Clause Construal , 1996 .

[30]  M. Pickering,et al.  Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension , 1999 .

[31]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation , 1994 .

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

[33]  S R Speer,et al.  The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[34]  L. Stowe.  Thematic Structures and Sentence Comprehension , 1989 .

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

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

[37]  Charles Jones,et al.  Purpose Clauses: Syntax, Thematics, and Semantics of English Purpose Constructions , 1991 .

[38]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

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

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

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

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

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

[44]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On not being led up the garden path : The use of context by the psychological syntax processor , 1985 .

[45]  M K Tanenhaus,et al.  A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject/object attachment preference , 1994, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[46]  M. MacDonald,et al.  Pragmatic constraint on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. , 1999 .

[47]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

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

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

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

[51]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing , 1995 .

[52]  M. Carreiras,et al.  A Study on Late Closure in Spanish: Principle-grounded vs. Frequency-based Accounts of Attachment Preferences , 1998 .

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

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

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

[56]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .