CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentLanguage Development and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records

Open access
Mitchell, Don C., Cuetos, Fernando, Corley, Martin M. B., Brysbaert, Marc·1995·Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
DOI 10.1007/bf02143162
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02143162

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Any simple structural metric that resolved the ambiguity on the basis of overall frequency bias will make errors in initial interpretation approximately 40% of the time.

    “Thus anysimple structural metric that resolved the ambiguityon the basis of overall frequencybias (e.g., Mitchell, Cuetos, Corley, & Brysbaert, 1995) will make errors in the initial interpretation of this ambiguityapproximately40% of the time.”

    From FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING: A Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition (2002) · cites this paper as Mitchell, Cuetos, Corley, & Brysbaert, 1995

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition variation and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.),Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbuam.
  2. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.),Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–360). New York: Wiley.
  3. Boland, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1991). The role of lexical representation in sentence processing. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 331–366). Amsterdam: Elsevier. · DOI
  4. Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G., & Garnsey, S. M. (1989). Lexical projection and the interaction of syntax and semantics in parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 563–576. · DOI
  5. Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing.Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432. · DOI
  6. Branigan, H., Pickering, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., Stewart, A. J. & Urbach, T. P. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24 (this issue). · DOI
  7. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (in press). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
  8. Carey, P. W., Mehler, J., & Bever, T. G. (1970). Judging the veracity of ambiguous sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 243–254. · DOI
  9. Clifton, C. E., Jr., (1993). Thematic roles in sentence parsing.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 222–246. · DOI
  10. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish.Cognition, 30, 73–105. · DOI
  11. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., & Corley, M. M. B. (in press). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sabastian-Galles (Eds.),Language processing in Spanish. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  12. Ford, M., Bresnan, J. W., & Kaplan, R. M. (1982). A competence based theory of syntactic closure. In J. W. Bresman (Ed.),The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 727–796). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  13. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII (pp. 601–681). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
  14. Frazier, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),Lexical representation and process (pp. 505–528). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. · DOI
  15. Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., & Clifton, C. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension.Memory & Cognition, 12, 421–430. · DOI
  16. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs.Cognition.54, 131–167. · DOI
  17. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (1994). Principle-based and probabilistic approaches to human parsing: How universal is the human language processor? In H. Trost (Ed.),Tagunsband KONVENS '94 (pp. 161–170). Berlin: Springer.
  18. Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). A constraint-based lexicalist account of the subject-object attachment preference.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 459–471. · DOI
  19. Konieczny, L., & Strube, G. (1995). SOUL: A cognitive parser. InProceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. (pp. 631–636). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Mehler, J., & Carey, P. W. (1967). The role of serface and base structure in the perception of sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Memory, 6, 335–338. · DOI
  22. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII (pp. 601–681). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  23. Mitchell, D. C. (1989). Verb guidance and lexical effects in ambiguity resolution.Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 123–154. · DOI
  24. Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375–409). New York: Academic Press.
  25. Mitchell, D. C., & Cuetos, F. (1991a). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.),Current issues in natural language processing. Austin: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Texas.
  26. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., & Corley, M. M. B. (1992, March).Statistical versus linguistic determinants of parsing bias: Cross-linguistic evidence. Paper presented at the 5th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New York.
  27. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., & Zagar, D. (1990). Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? In D. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 285–302). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  28. Pearlmutter, N. J., Daugherty, K. G., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Modeling the use of frequency and contextual biases in sentence processing. InProceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 699–704). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  29. Spivey-Knowlton, M. (1994). Quantitative predictions from a constraint-based theory of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In M. Mozer, P. Smolensky, D. Touretzky, J. Elman, & A. Weigland (Eds.),Proceedings of the 1993 Connectionist Models Summer School (pp. 130–137). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  30. Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints.Cognition, 55, 227–267. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton, M., McRae, K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In C. Umilta and M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance XV (pp. 589–615). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  32. Tanenhaus, M. K., Boland, J. E., Mauner, G., & Carlson, G. N. (1993). More on combinatory lexical information: Thematic structure in parsing and interpretation. In G. T. M. Altmann and R. C. Shillcock (Eds.),Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 297–319). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  33. Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G., & Trueswell, J. C. (1989). The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing.Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 211–234. · DOI
  34. Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Boland, J. (1990). Combinatory lexical information and language comprehension. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.),Cognitive models of speech processing (pp. 383–408) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  35. Tanenhaus, M. K., & Juliano, C. (1992, March).What to do about ‘that’: Use of cooccurrence information in parsing. Paper presented at the 5th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New York.
  36. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1995, March).Evidence against statistical parsing. Poster presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, Tucson.
  37. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation.Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. · DOI · Paper page
  38. 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, 528–553.
  39. Zagar, D., & Pynte, J. (1992, September).The role of semantic information and of attention in processing syntactic ambiguity: Eye-movement study. Paper presented at the 5th conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Paris.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Universidad de Oviedo (ES)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1995-11
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
469-488
ISSN
  • 0090-6905 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6555
DOI
10.1007/bf02143162
OpenAlex
W2099292045
Cited by
322
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (publishedVersion)
  • Consultation of the Doctoral Thesis Database (TESEO) (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
human parsing, statistical learning, language experience, parsing models, statistical regularities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review