The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited

By Charles Clifton Jr., Matthew J. Traxler, Mohamed Taha Mohamed, Rihana S. Williams, Robin K. Morris, Keith Rayner. 2003

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac3594d427e0cdabf8241725062c525d00cbc3d6

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 Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension (2005, background): “Relevant to this explanation, it has been observed that slight modifications to the reading span task, which we believe decrease control abilities, result in a task that no longer predicts individual variation in syntactic ambiguity resolution ( Clifton et al., 2003 ).”
Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing (2006, background): “…natives it has been suggested that individuals with relatively low working memory capacity show less of an effect of plausibility constraints on attachment decisions during on-line syntactic parsing (Just and Carpenter, 1992), although this result has recently been contested (Clifton et al., 2003).”
The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials (2005, background): “, which disambiguates the sentence (Clifton et al., 2003; Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; Rayner et al., 1983; Trueswell et al., 1994).”
Eye movements in reading words and sentences (2007, methodology): “, the unambiguous inanimate-subject conditions of Clifton et al. (2003) (15). In these cases, they may reflect some general comprehension difficulty, not associated with the resolution of a syntactic ambiguity. One final point is worth bringing up, even though it is not reflected in Table 2. We exam”
Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush (2006, methodology): “ing literature (e.g., Clifton et al., 2003; Traxler et al., 2002), that animacy is semantic variable.”
The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search (2009, background): “When readers are gardenpathed by syntactic ambiguity (Binder, Duffy, & Rayner, 2001; Boland & Blodgett, 2001; Clifton et al., 2003; Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Rayner et al., 1983; Rayner & Frazier, 1987; Rayner, Garrod, & Perfetti, 1992) their fixations get longer, and they…”
Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes (2007, result): “A few studies have also reported a slowdown in the ambiguous region compared to an unambiguous control (Clifton et al., 2003; Kennison, 2001; Ni et al., 1996; Paterson et al., 1999; Schmauder and Egan, 1998).”
RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependency (2018, background): “NP subject in the case of MV/RR garden-pathing (Trueswell et al., 1994, though see Ferreira and Clifton, 1986; Clifton Jr. et al., 2003 If RNNs have human-like sensitivity to the ﬁne-grained covariance of syntactic structure and lexico-semantic information, then surprisal should be superadditively…”