The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution

By Patrick Sturt. 2003

386 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4ab34c00f97dc973ffada5d1738f2be4374f263b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora (2007, background): “Furthermore, in cases ere the effect of structurally inaccessible antecedents ealized as a processing disruption due to the presence two candidate antecedents (e.g., Badecker & Straub, 2; Sturt, 2003), this may reflect interference effects at a lexical or conceptual level that make a grammatically a”
The Acquisition of Anaphora by Simple Recurrent Networks (2013, background): “Experimental results from Nicol & Swinney (1989), Gordon & Hendrick (1997), Asudeh & Keller (2001), Badecker & Straub (2002), and Sturt (2003) uniformly confirm people’s sensitivity to a c-command–based locality condition in pronoun and reflexive interpretation, along the lines of those in (9) and…”
The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives (2013, methodology): “The results reported here support a growing body of evidence showing that binding Principle A applies early during sentence processing to help guide reflexive anaphor resolution (Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Sturt, 2003; Xiang et al., 2009).”
Children's Processing of Reflexives and Pronouns in English: Evidence from Eye-movements During Listening (2011, background): “More generally, our results confirm that binding principles do not only constrain ultimate referential interpretations but also guide the online processing of reflexives and pronouns in both adults and children (e.g., Nicol & Swinney, 1989; McKee et al., 1993; Sturt, 2003; Love et al., 2009; Xiang e”
Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes (2007, background): “if the reflexive herself refers to the pilot), reading time on the pronoun is inflated (Duffy and Keir, 2004; Sturt, 2003; Sturt and Lombardo, 2005).”
ONLINE PRONOUN RESOLUTION IN L2 DISCOURSE: L1 Influence and General Learner Effects (2008, neutral): “…, the measure does not include any fixations from the first pass through the critical region + Therefore , if the region was not revisited a second time , a value of 0 ms was entered into the dataset , as is common practice in eye-tracking during reading studies ~ see , e + g +, Sturt , 2003 !”
Isolating stereotypical gender in a grammatical gender language: Evidence from eye movements (2014, background): “…stereotypical and definitional gender were contrasted in an eye-tracking study by Kreiner, Sturt, and Garrod (2008), with reflexive pronouns appearing in anaphoric or cataphoric positions (see also Van Gompel & Liversedge, 2003; and Sturt, 2003, for resolution of pronouns in cataphoric position).”
Grammatical processing in language learners (2006, background): “Encountering anaphoric expressions auch as reflexives or pronouns, for example, triggers the immediate reactivation of possible antecedents, in accordance with grammatical constraints such as the principles of binding theory (Nicol, 1988; Sturt, 2003).”
Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: topic, contrastive focus and pronouns (2007, background): “This initial set of possible antecedents appears to be limited to referents that could grammatically be antecedents (Clifton et al. 1997; Nicol 1988; Sturt 2003), though it is not known how this initial set is reduced to the single, actual antecedent.”
Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis (2017, background): “(regr-cont FFD) ( þ20) crit ( 50) crit ⁄Sturt (2003), Exp1 EN ET (RRT) gend pro subj(topic) 97 post n.s. ⁄Sturt (2003), Exp2 EN ET gend retro obj(topic) n.”
Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints (2011, methodology): “…effects of the inaccessible antecedent’s gender (9a,c 9b,d) might in fact be seen earlier than main effects of the accessible antecedent (9a,b 9c,d) in the German group, or the two factors might interact in early eye-movement measures (as was seen in some of the later measures in Sturt, 2003).”
The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search (2009, background): “While there are a few studies (see, for example, Birch & Rayner, 1997; Cook & Myers, 2004; Duffy & Keir, 2004; Duffy & Rayner, 1990; K. Ehrlich & Rayner, 1983; Garrod, O’Brien, Morris, & Rayner, 1990; Garrod & Terras, 2000; O’Brien, Raney, Albrecht, & Rayner, 1997; O’Brien, Shank, Myers, & Rayner, 1”
The on-line application of binding Principle A in English as a second language* (2009, methodology): “Studies using timecourse sensitive measures such as eye movements or event-related potentials (ERPs) have shown that native readers quickly link argument reflexives to their bindingaccessible antecedents during processing (Harris et al., 2000; Sturt, 2003; Xiang et al., to appear).”
Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements (2008, background): “, 1996), or longer fixations in eye-tracking experiments (e.g. Duffy & Keir, 2004; Sturt, 2003), has been termed the mismatch-cost.”
Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians, and mechanics are all men (2008, background): “…is a good continuation of the preceding text, they found that participants had most trouble with, and took longer to respond to, sentences that were incongruent with stereotypical gender of the role names in the preceding text (see also Duffy & Keir, 2004; Kennison & Trofe, 2003; Sturt, 2003).”
Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing (2016, methodology): “…is susceptible to interference has been widely debated in the L1 literature (Badecker & Straub, 2002; Clackson, Felser & Clahsen, 2011; Cunnings & Felser, 2013; Cunnings & Sturt, 2014; Dillon et al., 2013; Jäger et al., 2015; Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Xiang, Dillon & Phillips, 2009; Sturt, 2003).”