The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Processing Polarity: How the Ungrammatical Intrudes on the Grammatical
Open accessAbstract
A central question in online human sentence comprehension is, “How are linguistic relations established between different parts of a sentence?” Previous work has shown that this dependency resolution process can be computationally expensive, but the underlying reasons for this are still unclear. This article argues that dependency resolution is mediated by cue‐based retrieval, constrained by independently motivated working memory principles defined in a cognitive architecture. To demonstrate this, this article investigates an unusual instance of dependency resolution, the processing of negative and positive polarity items, and confirms a surprising prediction of the cue‐based retrieval model: Partial‐cue matches—which constitute a kind of similarity‐based interference—can give rise to the intrusion of ungrammatical retrieval candidates, leading to both processing slow‐downs and even errors of judgment that take the form of illusions of grammaticality in patently ungrammatical structures. A notable achievement is that good quantitative fits are achieved without adjusting the key model parameters.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,161
Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790942 · Cited by 13,597
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
(2001) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2001.s574 · Cited by 9,278
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779
Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness
Ford, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1985) · Language · doi:10.2307/414498 · Cited by 4,419
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
Head-driven phrase structure grammar
Sag, I. A., & Pollard, C. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,889
Cited by
Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study
Jäger, L. A., Mertzen, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Vasishth, S. (2020) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2019.104063 · Cited by 142
Self-citationA Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Models
Hu, J., Gauthier, J., Qian, P., Wilcox, E., & Levy, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.158 · Cited by 134
Metadata
- Authors
- Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 685-712
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W1498528128
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 3.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Processing Polarity: How the Ungrammatical Intrudes on the Grammatical. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03640210802066865
- The paper
- Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing Polarity: How the Ungrammatical Intrudes on the Grammatical. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066865
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.