The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution
Abstract
Ambiguity resolution is a central problem in language comprehension. Lexical and syntactic ambiguities are standardly assumed to involve different types of knowledge representations and be resolved by different mechanisms. An alternative account is provided in which both types of ambiguity derive from aspects of lexical representation and are resolved by the same processing mechanisms. Reinterpreting syntactic ambiguity resolution as a form of lexical ambiguity resolution obviates the need for special parsing principles to account for syntactic interpretation preferences, reconciles a number of apparently conflicting results concerning the roles of lexical and contextual information in sentence processing, explains differences among ambiguities in terms of ease of resolution, and provides a more unified account of language comprehension than was previously available.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Thus, the ambiguityis stronglyconstrained bythe frequencywith which the ambiguous verb occurs in transitive and passive structures, of which reduced relative clauses are a special type (MacDonald, 1994; MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; Trueswell, 1996).”
From FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING: A Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition (2002) · cites this paper as MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994
Citations
Cites
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures
Chomsky, N. (1993) · Mouton eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110884166 · Cited by 8,541
Fodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.5.375 · Cited by 4,889
Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar
Freidin, R., & Jackendoff, R. S. (1975) · Language · doi:10.2307/413161 · Cited by 4,615
Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection
Dowty, D. R. (1991) · Language · doi:10.1353/lan.1991.0021 · Cited by 4,480
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.523 · Cited by 3,909
Self-citationThe Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations
Baltin, M., & Bresnan, J. (1985) · Language · doi:10.2307/414493 · Cited by 2,783
Cited by
Integration of Visual and Linguistic Information in Spoken Language Comprehension
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7777863 · Cited by 2,929
Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.1.56 · Cited by 2,698
Self-citationToward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies
Gibson, E. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1 · Cited by 2,537
Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing
Friederici, A. D. (2002) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01839-8 · Cited by 2,231
Metadata
- Authors
- MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 676-703
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2028041302
- Cited by
- 2,259
- References
- 128
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 150 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 119 · 2013: 94 · 2012: 57
- FWCI
- 16.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG010109, AG-10109)
- National Institute of Mental Health (1-F32-MH10592-01, F32MH010592, MH-47566, P01MH047566)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- syntactic ambiguity resolution, lexical ambiguity resolution, lexical ambiguity, sentence processing, language comprehension, lexical representation, syntactic analysis, contextual information
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Models, Psychological, Speech Perception, Vocabulary
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676
- The paper
- MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676
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.
