When processing the initial segment of a sentence, readers may favor an interpretation that will turn out to be incorrect as more words are read. In these cases, a reanalysis process is necessary in order to correct the mental representation built up to that point. It has been previously proposed that readers obey a minimum change restriction, as they prefer to change the mental representation as little as possible. The present paper reports two experiments in Japanese suggesting that a minimal change restriction is unnecessary to characterize reanalysis. It is proposed instead that the present data and previous observations are more naturally explained by a constraint-driven model in which revisions are performed only when required by parsing constraints.
Abney, S., & Johnson, M. (1991). Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 233-250.
2.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
3.
Cohen, J.D., Macwhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers . Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers , 25, 257-271.
4.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
5.
Fodor, J. D., & Ferreira, F. (Eds.). (1998). Reanalysis in sentence processing . Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer .
6.
Fodor, J.D., & Frazier, L. (1980). Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN ? Cognition, 8, 417-459.
7.
Fodor, J.D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407-434.
8.
Fodor, J.D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101-140). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
9.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Frazier, L. (1990). Identifying structure under X0. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 3 (pp. 87-105). Amsterdam , the Netherlands: Foris Publications.
11.
Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 437- 468.
12.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 143-175). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
13.
Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
14.
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1998). Constraints on sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 262-268.
15.
Gorrell, P. (1989). Establishing the loci of serial and parallel effects in syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Review , 18, 61-73.
16.
Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Hasegawa, N. (1990). Comments on Mazuka and Lust's paper. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp.207-223). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18.
Hirose, Y. (1994). Parsing Japanese relative clauses: Raising or lowering?Poster presented at the 7th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, N Y .
19.
Inoue, A., & Fodor, J.D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 9-63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A., & Woolley, J.D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 228-238.
21.
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G.T.M., & Haywood, S.L. (2000). Predictive eye-movements in incremental processing of head-final structures. Poster presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, San Diego, CA.
22.
Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D.C. (1999). Incremental prehead attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 631-662.
23.
Koh, S. ( 1997). The resolution of the dative NP ambiguity in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 26, 265-273.
24.
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Macdonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
26.
Mazuka, R. (1998). The development of language processing strategies . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
27.
Mazuka, R., & Itoh, K. (1995). Can Japanese speakers be led down the garden-path? In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
28.
Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., & Kondo, T. (2002). Cost of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing . In M . Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence processing in East-Asian languages (pp. 131-166). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
29.
Mazuka, R., & Lust, B. (1990). On parameter setting and parsing: Predictions for cross-linguistic differences in adult and child processing. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 163-205). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30.
Miller , G. (1963). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. In R. Luce, R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Readings in mathematical psychology, 1 (135-151). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
31.
Miyagawa, S. (1989). Structure and case marking in Japanese. Syntax and semantics, 22. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
32.
Miyamoto, E.T. (2002). Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese . Journal of Psycho linguistic Research, 31, 307-347.
33.
Miyamoto, E.T., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. Talk to be presented at the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, San Diego, CA. March 2003.
34.
Miyamoto, E.T., & Takahashi, S. (2002). Sources of difficulty in the processing of scrambling in Japanese. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence processing in East Asian languages (pp. 167-188). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
35.
Pritchett, B.L. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 251-270.
36.
Pritchett, B.L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
37.
Sadakane, K., & Koizumi, M. (1995).On the nature of the "dative" particle ni in Japanese . Linguistics, 33, 5-33.
38.
Scheepers, C., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (1999). Incremental processing of German verb-final constructions: Predicting the verb's minimum (!) valency. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Cognitive Science (ICCS/JCSS99). Tokyo, July 27-30, 1999.
39.
Stowe, L.A. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227-245.
40.
Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachments and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449-494.
41.
Tanenhaus, M.K., Carlson, G., & Trueswell, J.C. (1989). The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes , 4, 211-234.
42.
Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Garnsey, S.M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
43.
Tsujimura, N. (1999). The handbook of Japanese linguistics (Editor) . Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
44.
Ueno, M., & Klunder, R. (in press). Event-related brain indices of scrambling in Japanese. Brain and Language.
45.
Yamashita, H. (1994). Processing of Japanese and Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
46.
Yamashita, H. (1997). Th effects of word-orderand case marking information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 163-188.
