Cited by 380Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationReading and Literacy Development

Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution

MacDonald, Maryellen C.·1994·Language and Cognitive Processes

Abstract

Natural languages contain probabilistic constraints that influence the resolution of ambiguities. Current models of sentence processing agree that probabilistic constraints affect syntactic ambiguity resolution, but there has been little investigation of the constraints themselves-what they are, how they differ in their effects on processing, and how they interact with one another. Three different types of probabilistic constraints were investigated: “pre-ambiguity” plausibility information, information about verb argument structure frequencies, and “post-ambiguity” constraints that arrive after the introduction of the ambiguity but prior to its disambiguation. Reading times for syntactically ambiguous sentences were compared to reading times for unambiguous controls in three self-paced reading experiments. All three kinds of constraints were found to be helpful, and when several constraints converged, ambiguity resolution was facilitated compared to when constraints conflicted. The importance of these constraint interactions for ambiguity resolution models is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01690969408402115

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The ambiguity in sentences like 'The plane left for...' is strongly constrained by the frequency with which the ambiguous verb occurs in transitive and passive structures.

    “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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacDonald, M. C.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
MacDonald, Maryellen C.
Venue
Language and Cognitive Processes
Published
1994-05
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
157-201
ISSN
  • 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0732
OpenAlex
W2154590657
Cited by
379
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language and Cognitive Processes (publishedVersion)
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, chance constraints, constraint interaction, reading time, self-paced reading, sentence processing, ambiguity disambiguation

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