Диссертация (1148718), страница 26
Текст из файла (страница 26)
The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. /L. Frazier, J. D. Fodor // Cognition. – 1978. – Vol. 6. – P. 291–325.90. Frisch, S. The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. / S. Frisch, M.Schlesewsky, D. Saddy, A. Alpermann // Cognition. – 2002. – Vol. 85. –P. 383–392.91. Gernsbacher, M. A. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage offirst mention / M.
A. Gernsbacher, D. Hargreaves // Journal of Memoryand Language. 1988. – Vol. 27. – P.699–717.92. Gibson, E. Disambiguation preferences in Noun Phrase conjunction donot mirror corpus frequency. / E. Gibson, C. Schütze // Journal of Memoryand Language. – 1999. – Vol.40. – P.263–279.93. Gibson, E. The relationship between the frequency and the complexity oflinguistic structure. / E. Gibson, C. Schütze, A. Salomon // Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research.
– 1996. – Vol.25. – P. 59–92.94. 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.157–191.15495. 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.131–167.96. Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation / H. P. Grice // P. Cole & J. L.Morgan Syntax and Semantics . – New York: Academic Press, 1975. – P.41–58.97. Grillo, N. A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. / N.Grillo, J.
Costa // Cognition. 2014. – Vol. 133 –№1. – P. 156–187.98. Hemforth, B. Principle-based and probabilistic approaches to humanparsing: How universal is the human language processor? / B. Hemforth,L. Konieczny, C. Scheepers // H. Trost (Ed.), Tagungsband KONVENS'94. – 1994. – P. 161–170.99. Jun, S.A. Default Phrasing in English Relative Clause Attachment Data /S.A.Jun, M.
Shilman // Proceedings of the 4th International Conference onSpeech Prosody. – 2008.100. Jun, S.A. Default phrasing and attachment preference in Korean. /S. A. Jun, S. Kim // Proceedings of International Conference on SpokenLanguage Processing . – 2004.101. Jun, S. A. Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese. /S. A. Jun, C. Koike // Japanese –Korean Linguistics. – Stanford, 2008. P.41–53.102. Kim, J. H. Sentence Complexity and Working Memory Effects inAmbiguity Resolution. / J.
H. Kim, K. Christianson // Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research. 2013. – Vol. 42. – P. 393–411.103. Kimball, J. Seven Principles of Surface Structure Parsing. / J. Kimball //Cognition. – 1973. – Vol. 2. – № 1. – P. 15–47.104. Kırkıcı, B. The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities inTurkish / B. Kırkıcı // Journal of Turkic Languages.
– 2004. – Vol. 8. –№1. – P.111–121.155105. 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. 517–526.106. Logačev, P. A Multiple-Channel Model of Task-Dependent AmbiguityResolution in Sentence Comprehension.
/ P. Logačev, S. Vasishth. //Cognitive Science. – 2015. – P. 1–33.107. Lovric, N. RC attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Croatian. /N. Lovric, J. D. Fodor // Poster presented at the 13th Annual CUNYConference on Human Sentence Processing. – La Jolla, 2000.108. 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. 676–703.109.
Maia, M. Early and late preferences in relative clause attachment inPortuguese and Spanish. / M. Maia, E.M. Fernández, A. Costa, M.D.C.Lourenço–Gomes // Journal of Portuguese Linguistics. – 2006. – Vol.5. –P. 3–26.110. Mason, R. A. Ambiguity in the brain: What brain imaging reveals aboutthe processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences.
/ R. A. Mason,M. A. Just, T. A. Keller, P. A. Carpenter // Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. – 2003. – Vol. 29. – P.1319–1338.111. 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.469–488.112. Miyamoto, E.T. Au-shaped relative clause attachment preference inJapanese. / E. T. Miyamoto, E. Gibson, N. J. Pearlmutter, T. Aikawa,156S. Miyagawa // Language and Cognitive processes. – 1999. –Vol.14. №5/6. – P. 663–686.113.
Miyamoto, E. T. Relative clause processing in Brazilian Portuguese andin Japanese. / E.T. Miyamoto – Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. – 125p.114. Nowak, A. On relative clause attachment in Polish: Evidence for lateclosure. / A. Nowak // Poster presented at the 13th CUNY Conference onHuman Sentence Processing. – La Jolla, 2000.115. Papadopoulou, D. Cross-linguistic Variation in Sentence ProcessingEvidence from RC Attachment Preferences in Greek (Studies inTheoretical Psycholinguistics). / D. Papadopoulou.
– Dordrecht: SpringerNetherlands, 2006. – 251 p.116. 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. 521–542.117. 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.469–503.118. Pickering, M. J. Syntactic parsing. / M. J. Pickering, R. P. G.vanGompel // M. J. Traxler. & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of.Psycholinguistics, 2nd Ed. Elsevier, 2006. – P. 249–283.119. Pynte,J.ResolvingSyntacticAmbiguities:Cross-LinguisticDifferences? / J. Pynte, C. Frenck-Menstre // De Vincenzi & Lombardo(Eds), Cross–linguistic perspectives on language processing. – KluwerAcademic Press, 2000. – P.119–148.120.
Rumelhart, D. E. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in theMicrostructure of Cognition. Volume 2: Psychological and Biological157Models / D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland. – Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1986. – 632 p.121. Sekerina, I. Relative Clause Attachment in Bulgarian. / I.A.Sekerina,E.M.Fernández, K.A. Petrova // The Proceedings of the 12th AnnualWorkshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The OttawaMeeting, 2003.
– P. 375–394.122. Sekerina, I. The Late Closure Principle in Processing of AmbiguousRussian Sentences. / I. Sekerina // The Proceedings of the SecondEuropean Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. –Universität Potsdam, Germany, 2003. – P.1–17.123. Shaked, A. Relative clause attachment in Hebrew: Free versus constructstate nominals. / A.
Shaked, D. Bradley, E. M. Fernández // Posterpresented at the 10thAnnual Conference onArchitectures andMechanism of Language Processing (AMLaP). – Aix en Provence, France,2004.124. Soares, A. El papel de la animacidad en la resolución de ambigüedadessintácticas en portugués europeo: evidencia en tareas de producción ycomprensión./ A.Soares, I.
Fraga., M. Comesaña,A. Piñeiro //Psicothema. 2010. – Vol. 22. – № 4. – P.691–696.125. Spivey-Knowlton, M. Resolving attachment ambiguities with multipleconstraints. / M. Spivey-Knowlton, J.C. Sedivy // Cognition. – 1995. –Vol. 55. – P. 227–267.126. Staub, A. Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. /A. Staub, K. Rayner // The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics.
–NY:Oxford University Press, 2007. – P. 327–341.127. Stevenson, R. J. Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events /R. J. Stevenson, R. A. Crawley, D. Kleinman // Language and CognitiveProcesses. 1994. – № 9. – P.519–548.158128. 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 – 81129. Swets, B. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: evidence fromself–paced reading. / B. Swets, T. Desmet, C. Clifton, F.Ferreira //Memory & Cognition. 2008. – Vol. 36. – P. 201–217.130. Taraban, R. Parsing and comprehension: A multiple-constraint view. /R. Taraban, J. L. McClelland // D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K.Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading.
– Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, 1990. – P. 231–263.131. Traxler, M. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguityresolution. / M. Traxler, M. Pickering, C. Clifton // Journal of Memory132. Traxler, M. Trends in syntactic parsing: anticipation, Bayesianestimation, and good–enough parsing. / M. Traxler // Trends in CognitiveScience. – 2014. – Vol.
18. – № 11. – P. 605–611.133. 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. 528–553.134. 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. 285–318.135. Trueswell, J.C. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguityresolution. / J. C. Trueswell // Journal of Memory and Language. – 1996. –Vol.35. – P. 566–585.159136.
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. 284–307.137. Van Gompel, R. P. G. Unrestricted race: A new model of syntacticambiguity resolution. / R.P.G.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
