The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.

MacDonald, Maryellen C.; Pearlmutter, Neal J.; Seidenberg, Mark S.

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676

Cited by 1,818 publications

(1,521 citation statements)

References 120 publications

(275 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

1,398

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that verb-bound preferences indeed influence syntactic processing: there was an inverse preference effect of syntactic priming effects in response choices and a positive preference effect of syntactic priming effects in response latencies. This support the idea that syntactic processing is lexically guided (lexicalist parsing models of syntax; e.g., Jackendoff, 2002;Joshi & Schabes, 1997;MacDonald et al, 1994).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

The influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on the processing of syntactic structures.

Weber¹,

Cladder-Micus²,

Hagoort³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speakers sometimes repeat syntactic structures across sentences, a phenomenon called syntactic priming. We investigated the influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on syntactic priming effects in response choices and response latencies for German ditransitive sentences. In the response choices we found inverse preference effects: There were stronger syntactic priming effects for primes in the less preferred structure, given the syntactic preference of the prime verb. In the response latencies we found positive preference effects: There were stronger syntactic priming effects for primes in the more preferred structure, given the syntactic preference of the prime verb. These findings provide further support for the idea that syntactic processing is lexically guided.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

The influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on the processing of syntactic structures.

Weber¹,

Cladder-Micus²,

Hagoort³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as laid out in the introduction, real language use is not a random affair solely constrained by uncoupled sets of grammatical rules. Different layers of the grammar are tightly linked to each other through the lexicon, as well as through correlated constraints (MacDonald et al, 1994;Tanenhaus & Trueswell, 1995) or interface rules (Jackendoff, 2002) that express mappings at a supralexical level. In addition, the interpretive layer is strongly correlated to the real world outside the language system.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticipating Upcoming Words in Discourse: Evidence From ERPs and Reading Times.

Berkum¹,

Brown²,

Zwitserlood³

et al. 2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

669

643

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined whether people can use their knowledge of the wider discourse rapidly enough to anticipate specific upcoming words as a sentence is unfolding. In an event-related brain potential (ERP) experiment, subjects heard Dutch stories that supported the prediction of a specific noun. To probe whether this noun was anticipated at a preceding indefinite article, stories were continued with a gender-marked adjective whose suffix mismatched the upcoming noun's syntactic gender. Predictioninconsistent adjectives elicited a differential ERP effect, which disappeared in a no-discourse control experiment. Furthermore, in self-paced reading, prediction-inconsistent adjectives slowed readers down before the noun. These findings suggest that people can indeed predict upcoming words in fluent discourse and, moreover, that these predicted words can immediately begin to participate in incremental parsing operations.

show abstract

“…Likewise, at least previously proposed "single-mechanism" models of grammatical and lexical phenomena (Bates and MacWhinney, 1989; Joanisse and Seidenberg, 1999;MacDonald et al, 1994;Rumelhart and McClelland, 1986) do not appear to be compatible with the PDH, or with the grammatical/lexical dissociations found in SLI (see Pinker and Ullman, 2002a;Ullman and Gopnik, 1999;van der Lely and Ullman, 2001). However, it must be noted that the single-mechanism 43 (connectionist) computational perspective is not in principle incompatible with the PDH and the findings described above, since distinct declarative and procedural systems can and have been modeled by connectionist simulations (Dominey et al, 2003;McClelland et al, 1995).…”

Section: Conclusion 41mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The PDH is largely motivated by the Declarative/Procedural model of language, and evidence supporting the PDH also supports this perspective. The PDH predicts that SLI is associated with non-linguistic functions that are subserved by the same brain system that also underlies grammar; this outcome is clearly not expected by the view that domain-specific modules subserve distinct aspects of grammar (Chomsky, 1995;Fodor, 1983;Frazier and Fodor, 1978;Grodzinsky, 2000).Likewise, at least previously proposed "single-mechanism" models of grammatical and lexical phenomena (Bates and MacWhinney, 1989; Joanisse and Seidenberg, 1999;MacDonald et al, 1994;Rumelhart and McClelland, 1986) do not appear to be compatible with the PDH, or with the grammatical/lexical dissociations found in SLI (see Pinker and Ullman, 2002a;Ullman and Gopnik, 1999;van der Lely and Ullman, 2001). However, it must be noted that the single-mechanism 43 (connectionist) computational perspective is not in principle incompatible with the PDH and the findings described above, since distinct declarative and procedural systems can and have been modeled by connectionist simulations (Dominey et al, 2003;McClelland et al, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Ullman

Pierpont

2005

Cortex

703

751

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific Language Impairment (SLI) has been explained by two broad classes of hypotheses, which posit either a deficit specific to grammar, or a non-linguistic processing impairment. Here we advance an alternative perspective. According to the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH), SLI can be largely explained by the abnormal development of brain structures that constitute the procedural memory system. This system, which is composed of a network of inter-connected structures rooted in frontal/basal-ganglia circuits, subserves the learning and execution of motor and cognitive skills.Crucially, recent evidence also implicates this system in important aspects of grammar. The PDH posits that a significant proportion of individuals with SLI suffer from abnormalities of this brain network, leading to impairments of the linguistic and non-linguistic functions that depend on it. In contrast, functions such as lexical and declarative memory, which depend on other brain structures, are expected to remain largely spared. Evidence from an in-depth retrospective examination of the literature is presented. It is argued that the data support the predictions of the PDH, and particularly implicate Broca's area within frontal cortex, and the caudate nucleus within the basal ganglia. Finally, broader implications are discussed, and predictions for future research are presented. It is argued that the PDH forms the basis of a novel and potentially productive perspective on SLI. INTRODUCTIONSpecific Language Impairment (SLI) is generally defined as a developmental disorder of language in the absence of frank neurological damage, hearing deficits, severe environmental deprivation, or mental retardation (for diagnostic definitions and prevalence of SLI, see Bishop, 1992;Leonard, 1998;Tomblin et al., 1997). Other terms have also been used to label such children, including developmental dysphasia, language impairment, language learning disability, developmental language disorder, delayed speech and deviant language (Leonard, 1998;Ahmed et al., 2001). Several factors have complicated attempts to provide a unified theory of SLI, or even of subgroups of SLI. First, despite the standard use of exclusionary criteria to diagnose SLI, the disorder is clearly not limited to language.Rather the linguistic impairments co-occur with a number of non-linguistic deficits, including impairments of motor skills and working memory, and with other disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Hill, 2001;Leonard, 1998;Tirosh and Cohen, 1998). Second, even though SLI must be a consequence of some sort of neural dysfunction, the neural correlates of the disorder have been largely ignored. This potentially valuable information could provide important constraints on explanatory accounts of the disorder. Third, SLI is a classification that is quite heterogeneous (Leonard, 1998;Stromswold, 2000). Surveys document variation within and across subgroups in the particular aspects of language that are affected and in the types of co-occurring no...

show abstract

The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.

Cited by 1,818 publications

References 120 publications

The influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on the processing of syntactic structures.

The influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on the processing of syntactic structures.

Anticipating Upcoming Words in Discourse: Evidence From ERPs and Reading Times.

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About