Chapter 5 General Discussion
5.4 Inherent processing difficulty
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
As for syntactic category ambiguous words (VN/NV), Experiment 1 demonstrated that the SBE was absent until the second-pass reading in the post-target region, while Experiment 2 obtained the SBE instantly on the measures of initial processing in the target region. These findings are in agreement with the suggestion of Lee and Federmeier (2009) that semantic information is also important to the semantic resolution of SCA words. In their electrophysiological study, a sustained frontal negativity (200-700 ms), elicited by the NV-homographs in the syntactic prose sentences, was largely reduced when additional semantic information was available in contexts. Our findings accord with theirs in a way that the SBE for SCA words was elicited when the preceding strong semantic constraint was eliminated. In addition, they also found NV-homographs elicited larger N400 than did unambiguous words only when context was biased toward the subordinate meaning of homographs, indicating the automatic activation of the dominant meaning of NV-homographs in the subordinate-biased contexts. Our experiments also demonstrated the SBE for SCA words on the second-pass measures.
5.4 Inherent processing difficulty
The present study provides evidence for a difference in the inherent processing difficulty between nouns and verbs. In Experiment 1, we observed the syntactic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
category effects (V > N) of the target words in the target region. Refixation rate was higher when the target words were verbs compared to when the target words were nouns. This finding suggests that processing verbs needs more efforts. In addition, we also observed the syntactic category effects of homographs’ dominant meaning in the post-target region. The first-pass probability measures showed larger processing costs (i.e., lower skipping rate and higher refixation rate) when the homographs’ dominant meaning was noun, while the second-pass probability measures showed larger processing costs (i.e., higher rereading and regression-in rate) when the homographs’
dominant meaning was verb. These results indicate that the activation of noun meanings is faster than that of verb meanings. Our findings are consistent with the observations of some previous research using lexical decision task in which nouns were processed faster than verbs (Rösler et al., 2001; J. A. Sereno, 1999; J. A. Sereno
& Jongman, 1997).
The difference in the inherent processing difficulty between nouns and verbs also influences the SBE during lexical ambiguity resolution. Both experiments revealed an unequal effect size of the SBE between VN and NV homographs. Experiment 1 showed that the SBE for VN was less obvious than that for NV, while Experiment 2 demonstrated that the SBE for VN occurred earlier and more pervasively than that for NV. These findings may result from the different compositional nature of VN and NV
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
homographs. The differential processing difficulties between the alternative noun and verb meanings may interact with the meaning frequency, influencing the activation speeds of the alternative meanings of SCA words. In the case of VN homograph, the activation speeds of the alternative meanings might be somewhat equivalent. On the one hand, although the verb meaning is originally more difficult to process than the noun meaning, the activation of the verb meaning can be boosted due to the help of its high meaning frequency. On the other hand, although the noun meaning originally has less processing difficulty than the verb meaning, its activation would be slowed down because of the low meaning frequency. Therefore, for VN, when the context involved strongly-biasing constraints in Experiment 1, the context-intended meaning can be quickly selected, resulting in the absence of SBE. Nevertheless, when the context lacked the strongly-biasing semantic constraint in Experiment 2, the alternative meanings of VN were activated simultaneously, contributing to the pervasive SBE. In the case of NV homograph, the activation speeds of the alternative meanings differ to a great degree. On the one hand, the noun meaning can be activated very fast because it has less processing difficulty and high frequency at the same time. On the other hand, the activation of the verb meaning would be very slow due to its larger processing difficulty and low frequency. Thus, when the strongly-biasing constraints was used to boost the activation of the verb meaning in Experiment 1, the alternative
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
meanings of NV might compete, showing a pattern of SBE. Nevertheless, when the strongly-biasing semantic constraint was eliminated in Experiment 2, readers activated and selected the noun meaning fast, resulting in the absence of SBE.
5.5 Limitations and future research
In the present study, both experiments employed the sentences involving the syntactic category constraint. To constrain the syntactic category in the target region, a pre-target word was often used to provide the syntactic category cue. For example, adjectives (e.g., 猛烈) were used in the pre-target region to provide a cue for nouns (e.g., 風聲). As a result, whether the readers fixate on the pre-target words might be a
good index of readers’ notice of the syntactic category constraint. A further analysis of the effects on the target and post-target words can be done based on those trials on which the readers have first-pass reading on the pre-target words. This analysis can help us to validate the effects observed in the present study. In addition, in Experiment 2, the semantically-disambiguating information was only provided in the succeeding context by employing the disambiguating words which were semantically-related to the subordinate meaning of homographs. Although the present results showed that the ambiguity effects were apparent in the second-pass reading on the target and post-target words, it needs to be clarified whether these effects arose indeed because
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of the conflict between the initially-selected meaning and the disambiguating information provided. Thus, another further analysis can be done based on those trials on which the readers have first-pass reading on the disambiguating words. This analysis can help us to clarify the sources of the apparent ambiguity effects.
The present study demonstrated that VN and NV homographs obtained unequal size of the ambiguity effect, indicating that the inherent processing difficulties of the alternative meanings and meaning frequency can jointly influence the semantic ambiguity resolution of biased SCA words. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the inherent processing difficulty also influences the semantic ambiguity resolution of balanced SCA words in syntactically- and semantically-neutral sentences. Based on the previous findings for processing balanced homographs in neutral sentences, balanced SCA words would require more reading times than their frequency-matched unambiguous words if the processing difficulty with noun and verb meaning does not exert influence. Otherwise, the reading times on balanced SCA words would be similar to those on unambiguous words since the noun meaning can be activated earlier than the verb meaning. Furthermore, given the larger processing difficulty with verbs, one of the factors that could contribute to the processing difficulty is transitivity.
Transitivity is related to the internal argument structure of verbs. Transitive verbs require at least two arguments (Subject and Object), which are considered more
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
complex than intransitive verbs, which requiring only one argument (Subject).
German transitive verbs seemed more difficult to process than does German intransitive verbs (Kauschke & Stenneken, 2008). However, research on English verbs suggested that verb complexity did not affect fixation times (Rayner & Duffy, 1986). Thus, it is of significance to investigate whether transitivity can influence the difficulty of processing verbs, and if so, whether transitivity influences the activation of different meaning of homographic verbs whose alternative meaning differ in transitivity.
‧
Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus. (2004). Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models
using S4 classes (Version R package version 0.999999-0). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57-65. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006
Burgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain and Language, 33(1), 86-103.
doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(88)90056-9
Carpenter, P. A., & Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2), 137-160. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90357-1
Chinese Wordnet. (2005). from Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/
Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection:
Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446. doi:
10.1016/0749-596x(88)90066-6
Federmeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123, 2552-2566.
doi: 10.1093/brain/123.12.2552
Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory
& Cognition, 31(1), 87-99. doi: 10.3758/bf03196085
Frazier, L. (1979). On Comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies.
(Doctoral dissertation), University of Connecticut. Retrieved from
‧
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical reprsentation and process (pp. 505-528). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of Syntactic Category Ambiguities:
Eye-Movements in Parsing Lexically Ambiguous Sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(5), 505-526. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(87)90137-9 Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing
multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181-200. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(90)90071-7
Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data.
Brain and Language, 50(3), 259-281. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brln.1995.1048
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84. doi:
10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01839-8
Friederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Neuroreport, 15(1), 165-169. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200401190-00032
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1219-1248.
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183-192. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(93)90026-2
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 438-453.
Gawlickgrendell, L. A., & Woltz, D. J. (1994). Meaning dominance norms for 120 homographs. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 26(1),
‧
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2.
Language, thought and culture (pp. 301-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Gentner, D. (2006). Why verbs are hard to learn. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M.
Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 544-564).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, E. (2006). The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 363-388. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.005
Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, R. J., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(3), 323-335.
doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.12.3.323
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439-483. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407585
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194-205. doi: 10.1162/089892999563328 Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and
syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13(3), 339-356. doi: 10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00127-6
Hahne, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2001). What’s left if the Jabberwock gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), 199-212.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00071-9
Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 265-274. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80070-3
Isel, F., Hahne, A., Maess, B., & Friederici, A. D. (2007). Neurodynamics of sentence interpretation: ERP evidence from French. Biological Psychology, 74(3), 337-346. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.003
Jones, A. C., Folk, J. R., & Brusnighan, S. M. (2012). Resolving syntactic category ambiguity: An eye-movement analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 672-688.
Kauschke, C., & Stenneken, P. (2008). Differences in Noun and Verb Processing in
‧
Lexical Decision Cannot be Attributed to Word Form and Morphological Complexity Alone. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(6), 443-452. doi:
10.1007/s10936-008-9073-3
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223. doi:
10.1006/brln.2001.2518
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1-24. doi:
10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001
Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 123(1), 11-21. doi:
10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007
Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses:
The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1534-1543. doi: 10.1037/a0013012
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463-470.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161-163. doi:
10.1038/307161a0
Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2006). To mind the mind: An event-related potential study of word class and semantic ambiguity. Brain Research, 1081, 191-202.
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.058
Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs.
Journal of Memory and Language, 61(4), 538-555. doi:
10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003
Li, P. (1998). Crosslinguistic variation and sentence processing: The case of Chinese Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic Perspective (Syntax and Semantics, Volume 31) (pp. 33-53): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Liu, Y., Hua, S., & Weekes, B. S. (2007). Differences in neural processing between nouns and verbs in Chinese: Evidence from EEG. Brain and Language, 103(1-2), 75-77. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.052
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
‧
Macdonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(5), 692-715. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1035 Macdonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of
syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703. doi:
10.1037//0033-295x.101.4.676
Macdonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 581-611). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3
Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(2), 151-165. doi:
10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory
& Cognition, 9(3), 225-236. doi: 10.3758/bf03196957
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785-806. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786-803. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.20.4.786
Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye-movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 251-271.
Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556-573.
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Rösler, F., Streb, J., & Haan, H. (2001). Event-related brain potentials evoked by verbs and nouns in a primed lexical decision task. Psychophysiology, 38(4), 694-703. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3840694
Rayner, K. (1977). Visual-attention in reading: Eye-movements reflect cognitive-processes. Memory & Cognition, 5(4), 443-448. doi:
‧
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye-movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 358-374. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(83)90236-0
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading:
Effects of word-frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory &
Cognition, 14(3), 191-201. doi: 10.3758/bf03197692
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779-790. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.5.779
Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Visual and linguistic processing during eye fixations in reading. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action : eye movements and the visual world (pp.
59-104). New York: Psychology Press.
Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 527-544. doi:
10.1006/jmla.1994.1025
Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary. (1994). from Ministry of Education, R.O.C.
http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245-266.
Schvaneveldt, R. W., Meyer, D. E., & Becker, C. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(2), 243-256. doi:
10.1037//0096-1523.2.2.243
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982).
Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 489-537. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2
Sereno, J. A. (1999). Hemispheric differences in grammatical class. Brain and Language, 70(1), 13-28. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2137
Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology.
Memory & Cognition, 25(4), 425-437. doi: 10.3758/bf03201119
Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations.
‧
Psychological Science, 3(5), 296-300.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 120-136. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90356-x
Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 28-39. doi:
10.1037/0096-1523.11.1.28
Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643. doi:
10.1016/0749-596x(91)90029-j
Stites, M. C., Federmeier, K. D., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2013). Cross-Age Comparisons Reveal Multiple Strategies for Lexical Ambiguity Resolution During Natural Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1823-1841. doi: 10.1037/a0032860
Swaab, T., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86(2), 326-343. doi: 10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00547-3
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension:
(Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645-659. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90355-4
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324-340. doi:
10.1016/0749-596x(88)90058-7
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2-3), 161-167. doi:
10.1007/bf00308682
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 359-372. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1019
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Donnenwerth-Nolan, S. (1984). Syntactic context and lexical access. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(4), 649-661.
doi: 10.1080/14640748408402184
Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 427-440. doi:
10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90237-8
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K.
‧
Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution.
Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285-318. doi:
10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528-553.
Tyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J., & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124, 1619-1634. doi:
10.1093/brain/124.8.1619
Tyler, L. K., & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 638-657. doi:
10.1016/0749-596x(87)90107-0
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407-426. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007
Vu, H., & Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength modulates the Subordinate Bias Effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy. The Quarterly Journal of
Vu, H., & Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength modulates the Subordinate Bias Effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy. The Quarterly Journal of