The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Structural ambiguity and lexical relations
Open accessAbstract
From a certain (admittedly narrow) perspective, one of the annoying features of natural language is the ubiquitous syntactic ambiguity. For a computational model intended to assign syntactic descriptions to natural language text, this seem like a design defect. In general, when context and lexical content are taken into account, such syntactic ambiguity can be resolved: sentences used in context show, for the most part, little ambiguity. But the grammar provides many alternative analyses, and gives little guidance about resolving the ambiguity.
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
Cited by
The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676 · Cited by 2,259
Ellis, N. C. (2002) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263102002024 · Cited by 2,230
A Probabilistic Constraints Approach to Language Acquisition and Processing
Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2304_8 · Cited by 335
Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints
Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00647-4 · Cited by 299
(1998) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Hindle, D., & Rooth, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language - HLT '90
- Published
- 1990
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 257-262
- OpenAlex
- W1859173823
- Cited by
- 503
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.86
- Type
- conference paper
- 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: Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3115/116580.116664
- The paper
- Hindle, D., & Rooth, M. (1990). Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language - HLT '90. https://doi.org/10.3115/116580.116664
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.
