Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,000

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interaction with context during human sentence processing

Altmann, Gerry, Steedman, Mark·1988·Cognition

Abstract

Abstract Psychological theories of natural language processing have usually assumed that the sentence processor resolves local syntactic ambiguities by selecting a single analysis on the basis of structural criteria such as Frazier's (1978) “minimal attachment.” According to such theories, alternative analyses will only be attempted if the initial analysis subsequently proves inconsistent with the context. (See also Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; Ford, Bresnan, & Kaplan, 1982; Rayner, Carlson, & Frazier, 1983). An alternative hypothesis exists, however: If sentences are understood incrementally, more or less word-by-word (Marlsen-Wilson, 1973, 1975), then syntactic processing can in principle exploit the fact that interpretations are available, using them “interactively” to select among alternative syntactic analyses on the basis of their plausibility with respect to the context. The present paper considers possible architectures for such incremental and interactive sentence processors, and argues for an architecture

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1988-12
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
191-238
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056367827
Cited by
1,000
References
1
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.