Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 349

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

Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser

Frazier, Lyn, Clifton, Charles·1989·Language and Cognitive Processes

Abstract

Four experiments studied the comprehension of sentences with relations between empty positions and phrases displaced from these positions (“gaps” and 'fillers). Evidence from self-paced reading and end-of-sentence acceptability judgement tasks confirms previous research indicating that the parser prefers to assign an identified filler as the argument of a verb immediately, rather than waiting to check the input for a lexical item of the expected category. We propose that the parser follows an “active filler strategy” which ranks the option of a gap above other options in the domain of an identified filler. The preference for gap over lexical item was evidenced even when a clause boundary separated filler and gap, but the need in this case to carry a filler across a clause boundary created substantial processing difficulty. We propose that, in processing a “long” movement (across more than one clause), the parser must assign the filler to a special “non-argument” position in a successive cylic fashion, consistent with the successive cyclic analysis of long-distance dependencies offered by some grammars.

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 · 10.1080/01690968908406359

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 349

Metadata

Authors
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C.
Venue
Language and Cognitive Processes
Published
1989-05
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
93-126
ISSN
  • 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0732
OpenAlex
W2033805517
Cited by
349
References
1
FWCI
37.04
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.