Диссертация (1148718), страница 23
Текст из файла (страница 23)
/ E. Gibson, C. Schütze, A. Salomon // Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research. – 1996. – Vol.25. – P. 59–92.82. Gibson, E., & Broihier, K. Optimality theory and human sentenceprocessing. // P. Barbosa et al. (Eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimalityand competition in syntax. – Cambridge: MIT, 1998. – p.157–191.83. Trueswell, J. C. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguityresolution. / J. C. Trueswell // Journal of Memory and Language. – 1996.
–Vol.35. – P. 566–585.13684. Pickering, M. J. Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequencyin the processing of unbounded dependencies / M. J. Pickering,M. J. Traxler // Language and Cognitive Processes. – 2003. – Vol.18. –№4 – P.469–503.85. Frazier, L. Parsing modifiers. Special purpose routines in the humansentence processing mechanism? / L. Frazier // D.A. Balota, G.B. Floresd'Arcais & K.
Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading. –Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990. – P. 303–330.86. Konieczny, L. Modifier attachment in German. Relative clauses andprepositional phrases. / L. Konieczny, B. Hemfort // A. Kennedy, R.Radach, D. Heller, & J.Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a Perceptual Process. –Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2000. – P. 517–526.87. Kimball, J.
Seven Principles of Surface Structure Parsing. / J. Kimball //Cognition. – 1973. – Vol. 2. – № 1. – P. 15–47.88. Pickering, M. J. Syntactic parsing. / M.J. Pickering, R.P.G.van Gompel //M.J.Traxler.&M.A.Gernsbacher(Eds.),Handbookof.Psycholinguistics, 2nd Ed. Elsevier, 2006. – P. 249–283.89. Papadopoulou, D. Cross–linguistic Variation in Sentence ProcessingEvidence from RC Attachment Preferences in Greek (Studies inTheoretical Psycholinguistics). / D. Papadopoulou. – Dordrecht: SpringerNetherlands, 2006. – 251 p.90.
Grillo, N. A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. / N.Grillo, J. Costa // Cognition. 2014. – Vol. 133 –№1. – P. 156–187.91. Frazier, L. Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. /L. Frazier, C. Clifton // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. – 1997. –Vol.26 – P.277–295.92. Gilboy, E. Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish andEnglish complex NPs. / E. Gilboy, J. Sopena, C. Clifton, L. Frazier //Cognition. – 1995. – Vol.54.
– P.131–167.13793. Pynte, J. Resolving Syntactic Ambiguities: Cross–Linguistic Differences?/ J. Pynte, C. Frenck–Menstre // De Vincenzi & Lombardo (Eds), Cross–linguistic perspectives on language processing. – Kluwer Academic Press,2000. – P.119–148.94. Mitchell, D. C. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence forthe use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. / D. C. Mitchell,F. Cuetos, M. M. B. Corley, M. Brysbaert // Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch. – 1995. – Vol. 24.
–№ 6. – P.469–488.95. Desmet, T. Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehensioncorresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken intoaccount. / T. Desmet, C. De Baecke, D. Drieghe, D., M. Brysbaert,W. Vonk // Language and Cognitive Processes. 2005. – Vol. 21. – №4. –P. 453–485.96. Engelhardt, P. E.
Processing coordination ambiguity. / P. E. Engelhardt,F. Ferreira // Language and Speech. – 2010. – Vol. 53. – P. 494–509.97. Gibson, E. Disambiguation preferences in Noun Phrase conjunction do notmirror corpus frequency. / E. Gibson, C. Schütze // Journal of Memory andLanguage. – 1999. – Vol.40. – P.263–279.98. Desmet, T. Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in nounphrase conjunction. / T. Desmet, E.
Gibson // Journal of Memory andLanguage. – 2003. – Vol.49. – P. 353–374.99. Spivey–Knowlton, M. Resolving attachment ambiguities with multipleconstraints. / M. Spivey–Knowlton, J.C. Sedivy // Cognition. – 1995. –Vol. 55. – P. 227–267.100. Trueswell, J. C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing:Separatingeffectsoflexicalpreferencefromgarden–paths./J. C. Trueswell, M. K. Tanenhaus, C. Kello // Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. – 1993. – Vol.
19. –P. 528–553.138101. MacDonald, M. C. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution /M. C. MacDonald, N. J. Pearlmutter, M. S. Seidenberg // Psychologicalreview. – 1994. –Vol. 101. – №. 4. – P. 676–703.102. Fodor, J.D. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. / J.D.Fodor //Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32 – Amherst: GSLA,University of Massachusetts, 2002. – P. 113–132.103. Jun, S. A.
Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese. /S. A. Jun, C. Koike // Japanese –Korean Linguistics. – Stanford, 2008. P.41–53.104. Jun, S. A. Default phrasing and attachment preference in Korean. /S. A. Jun, S. Kim // Proceedings of International Conference on SpokenLanguage Processing . – 2004.105.
Jun, S. A. Default Phrasing in English Relative Clause Attachment Data/ S. A. Jun, M. Shilman // Proceedings of the 4th International Conferenceon Speech Prosody. – 2008.106. Swets, B. The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution:A psychometric approach. / Swets, B. Desmet, T., Hambrick, D.Z., &Ferreira, F.
// Journal of Experimental Psychology. – 2007. – Vol. 136 – №1. – P. 64 – 81107. Frazier, L. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension:Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. /L. Frazier, K. Rayner // Cognitive Psychology. – 1982. – Vol.14. – P. 178–210.108. Ferreira, F. The independence of syntactic processing. / F. Ferreira,C. Clifton // Journal of Memory and Language.
– 1986. – Vol.25. –P. 348–368.109. Taraban, R. Parsing and comprehension: A multiple-constraint view. /R. Taraban, J. L. McClelland // D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, &139K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. – Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, 1990. – P. 231–263.110. Trueswell, J. C. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic roleinformation in syntactic ambiguity resolution. / J.
C. Trueswell,M. K. Tanenhaus, S. M. Garnsey // Journal of Memory and Language.1994. – Vol. 33. – P. 285–318.111. Rumelhart, D. E. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in theMicrostructure of Cognition. Volume 2: Psychological and BiologicalModels / D. E. Rumelhart, J. L.
McClelland. – Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1986. – 632 p.112. Vosse, T. In Defense of Competition During Syntactic AmbiguityResolution./ T. Vosse, G. Kempen // Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch. – 2009. – Vol. 38(1). P. 1–9.113. Ferreira, F. The use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidencefrom eye movements and word–by–word self–paced reading.
/ F. Ferreira,J.M. Henderson // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition. – 1990. – Vol.16. – P. 555–569.114. Altmann, G. Interaction with context during human sentence processing./ G. Altmann, M. Steedman // Cognition. – 1988. – Vol.30. – №3. –P.191–238.115. Pearlmutter , N. J. Individual differences and probabilistic constraints insyntactic ambiguity resolution. / N. J. Pearlmutter, M.C. MacDonald //Journal of Memory and Language. – 1995.
– Vol.34. – P. 521–542.116. Величковский, Б.М. Когнитивная наука. Основы психологиипознания. – В 2–х т. Т.2. / Б. М. Величковский. – Академия, 2006. –432 c.117. Frazier, L. Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movementsin parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. / L. Frazier, K.
Rayner // Journalof Memory and Language. – 1987. – Vol. 26 – P.505–526.140118. Traxler, M. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguityresolution. / M. Traxler, M. Pickering, C. Clifton // Journal of Memoryand Language. – 1998. – Vol. 39. – P.558–592.119. Van Gompel, R. P. G. Evidence against competition during syntacticambiguity resolution.
/ R. P. G. van Gompel, M. J. Pickering, J. Pearson,S. P. Liversedge // Journal of Memory and Language. – 2005. – Vol. 52. –P. 284–307.120. Swets, B. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: evidence fromself-paced reading. / B. Swets, T. Desmet, C. Clifton, F.
Ferreira //Memory & Cognition. 2008. – Vol. 36. – P. 201–217.121. Van Gompel, R. P. G. Unrestricted race: A new model of syntacticambiguity resolution. / R. P. G. van Gompel, M. J. Pickering, M. J. Traxler// A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (eds.), Reading as aperceptual process. – Oxford: Elsevier, 2000. – P. 621–648.122. Logačev, P. A Multiple-Channel Model of Task-Dependent AmbiguityResolution in Sentence Comprehension. / P. Logačev, S. Vasishth. //Cognitive Science. – 2015. – P. 1–33.123.
Федорова,О.В.Экспериментальныйанализдискурса./О. В. Федорова – М.: 2014. – 512 с.124. Чернова,Д.А.Интерпретациясинтаксическинеоднозначныхконструкций в русском языке: адъюнкт при сложной именной группе/ Д. А. Чернова // Филологические науки.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
