Two studies explored the processing of ambiguous sentences like Bill took chips to the party and Susan to the game, which may be assigned a gapping (Susan took chips) or a nongapping structure (Bill took Susan). The central question was what factors affect the ultimate interpretive preferences for these sentences. In a written questionnaire, sentences with greater parallelism between arguments in the positions of Bill and Susan received more gapping responses, though an overall bias toward the non gapping structure was seen. An auditory comprehension study showed that prosodic parallels between arguments also affected interpretation. In both experiments parallelism played a significant role in determiningan interpretation, but the simpler structure, the nongapping structure, was preferred overall.
Altmann, G., Henstra, G., & Garnham, A. (1993). Processing coordinated structures. Poster presented at the 6th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
2.
Bartels, C., & Kingston, J. (1994). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus and natural language processing. IBM Working Papers on Logic and Linguistics. v. 6. (pp. 1-10). Heidelberg.
3.
Beckman, M., & Ayers, G. (1994). Guidelines for ToBI transcription, vers. 2.0. Ms. and accompanying speech materials, Ohio State University .
4.
Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Into national structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.
5.
Birch, S., & Clifton, C.E. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365-391.
6.
Black, M., Coltheart, M., & Byng, S. (1985). Forms of coding in sentence comprehension during reading. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 655-672). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
Cooper, W., & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
8.
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech , 40, 141-201.
9.
Dalrymple, M., Shieber, S., & Pereira, F. (1991). Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 399-452.
10.
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
11.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559-585). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
Frazier, L., Munn, A. & Clifton, C.E. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 343-370.
13.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178 - 210.
14.
Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C.E., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 12, 421-430.
15.
Gibson, E., & Schütze, C. (1999). Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language , 40, 263-279.
16.
Gibson, E., Schütze, C., & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
17.
Greenbaum, S. (1977). Judgments of syntactic acceptability and frequency . Studia Linguistica, 31, 83 - 105.
18.
Greenbaum, S., & Meyer, C. (1982). Ellipsis and coordination: Norms and preferences . Language and Communication, 2, 137-149.
19.
Grosu, A. (1985). Subcategorization and parallelism. Theoretical Linguistics, 12, 231-240.
20.
Hankamer, J. (1971). Constraints on deletion in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
21.
Johnson, K. (1997). Bridging the gap. In search of the English middle field, Chap. 2. Ms., University of Massachusetts , Amherst.
22.
Kjelgaard, M.M. (1995). The role of prosodic structure in the resolution of phrase-level and lexical syntactic ambiguity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North eastern University.
23.
Kjelgaard, M.M., & Speer, S.R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153-194.
24.
Kuno, S. (1976). Gapping: A function al analysis. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 300-318.
25.
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-391.
26.
Lehiste, I. (1973). Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity . Glossa, 7, 107-122.
27.
Lehiste, I. (1975). The phonetic structure of paragraphs. In A. Cohen & S. G. Nooteboom (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception: Proceedings of symposium on dynamic aspects of speech perception (pp. 195-206). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York : Springer-Verlag.
28.
Lehiste, I. (1979). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries . In B. Lindblom & S. Oehman (Eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research (pp. 191 - 201). NewYork: Academic Press.
29.
Macdonald, M. (1998). Implications of statistical parsing for research on human language processing. Talk presented at the Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
30.
Marcus, M., & Hindle, D. (1990). Description Theory and intonation boundaries. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Computational and psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 483-512). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
Meyer, C. (1979). The greater acceptability of certain English elliptical coordinations. Studia Linguistica, 33, 130-137.
32.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
33.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of into national contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen,J. Morgan,& M. E. Pollock(Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Price, P., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck- Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation .Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956-2970.
35.
Rump, H.H., & Collier, R. (1996). Focusconditions and the prominenceofpitch-accented syllables. Language and Speech, 39, 1-17.
36.
Sag, I.A. (1980). Deletion and logical form. New York: Garland Publishing.
37.
Schafer, A., Carlson, K., Clifton, C.E., & Frazier, L. (2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43, 75-105.
38.
Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C.E., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163.
39.
Schwarz, B. (1999). On the syntax of either …or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 339 - 370.
40.
Selkirk, E.O. (1984).Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Selkirk, E.O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing . In J. Goldsmith(Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Publishers .
42.
Selkirk, E.O. (1997). Constraints on prosodic phrasing and their relevance for right node raising. Handout from talk delivered atSUNYStony Brook, February, 1997 .
43.
Selkirk, E.O. (1999). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing . In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment .Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishing.
44.
Speer, S., Kjelgaard, M., & Dobroth, K. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 249 - 271.
45.
Swerts, M., & Geluykens, R. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech, 37, 21-43.
46.
Tanenhaus, M.K., Spivey- Knowlton, M.J., & Hanna, J.E. (2000). Modeling thematic and discourse context effects within a multiple constraints framework: Implications for the architecture of the language comprehension system. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton, Jr., (Eds.), Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing (pp. 90-108). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
