The Problem of Comprehension in Psycholinguistics

References

• Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(5), 1061–1071. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.19.5.1061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2018). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(8), 1286–1311. doi:10.1037/xlm0000519
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1985). The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(1), 89–106. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90017-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 477–487. doi:10.3758/BF03197179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. (2016). Naturalistic sentence comprehension in the brain. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(7), 299–313. doi:10.1111/lnc3.v10.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. R., Stabler, E. P., Van Wagenen, S. E., Luh, W. M., & Hale, J. T. (2016). Abstract linguistic structure correlates with temporal activity during naturalistic comprehension. Brain and Language, 157, 81–94. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M., Rouet, J., & Durik, A. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, E., Gibson, E., & Wolf, F. (2005). Online syntactic storage costs in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(1), 144–169. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Memory and Language, 20(5), 540.
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, T., Fine, A., & Jaeger, T. (2011). Implicit context-specific learning leads to rapid shifts in syntactic expectations. 33rd Annual Meeting Conference Cognitive Science Society, 8, 2055–2060.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., Trompenaars, T., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic differences in processing double-embedded relative clauses: Working-memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science, 40(3), 554–578. doi:10.1111/cogs.2016.40.issue-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 58–93. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(20), 8051–8056. doi:10.1073/pnas.1216438110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248. doi:10.1080/016909699386293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gimenes, M., Rigalleau, F., & Gaonac’h, D. (2009). When a missing verb makes a French sentence more acceptable. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(3), 440–449. doi:10.1080/01690960802193670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington Stack, C. M., James, A. N., & Watson, D. G. (2018). A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 46(6), 864–877. doi:10.3758/s13421-018-0808-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasson, U., Egidi, G., Marelli, M., & Willems, R. M. (2018). Grounding the neurobiology of language in first principles: The necessity of non-language-centric explanations for language comprehension. Cognition, 180, 135–157. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. M., Choi, W., Luke, S. G., & Desai, R. H. (2015). Neural correlates of fixation duration in natural reading: Evidence from fixation-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 119, 390–397. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1981). Comprehension as the construction of mental models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 295(1077), 353–374. doi:10.1098/rstb.1981.0145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2010). Task effects on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1561–1566. doi:10.1037/a0020693
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2016). Limits on lexical prediction during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 88, 22–60. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected]. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magliano, J.P., & Graesser, A.C. (1991). A 3-Pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text. Poetics, 20(3), 193–232. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(91)90007-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magliano, J.P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A.C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615–629. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M., & Schraw, T. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141(2), 302–320. doi:10.1037/a0025250
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In D. Luce (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 2–419). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(4), 777–784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1200–1210. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olkoniemi, H., Johander, E., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2019). The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm. Memory & Cognition, 47(1), 87–105.
   Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., Darowski, E. S., Moon, N., & Ferreira, F. (2009). Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(1), 280–285. doi:10.1037/a0014276
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427–456. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potts, G. R., Keenan, J. M., & Golding, J. M. (1988). Assessing the occurrence of elaborative inferences: Lexical decision versus naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 399–415. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90064-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullum, G. K. (2004, May 6). Plausible Angloid gibberish [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000860.html
   Google Scholar
• Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 385–406. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90013-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Reineberg, A. E., & Schooler, J. W. (2010). Eye movements during mindless reading. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 21(9), 1300–1310. doi:10.1177/0956797610378686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, T. (2006). What is wrong with ANOVA and multiple regression? Analyzing sentence reading times with hierarchical linear models. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 41(3), 221–250. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4103_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Bicknell, K., Howard, I., Levy, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Task effects reveal cognitive flexibility responding to frequency and predictability: Evidence from eye movements in reading and proofreading. Cognition, 131(1), 1–27. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1218–1226. doi:10.1177/0956797613518350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slattery, T. J., Sturt, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 104–120. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 882–888. doi:10.3758/BF03196716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 201–216. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 355–370. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. K., & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 638–657. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90107-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Den Broek, P., & Gustafson., M. (1999). Comprehension and memory for texts: Three generations of reading research. In R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van Den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 15–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C., & Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(Pt 4), 591–597. doi:10.1080/14640747908400750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, A. F., Kretzschmar, F., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Staub, A. (2017). Comprehension demands modulate re-reading, but not first pass reading behavior. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 198–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence comprehension: Statistical learning, working memory and individual differences. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 250–271. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 543–583. doi:10.1093/jos/ffy014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432–445. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willems, R. M., Frank, S. L., Nijhof, A. D., Hagoort, P., & van Den Bosch, A. (2016). Prediction during natural language comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 26(6), 2506–2516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wotschack, C., & Kliegl, R. (2013). Reading strategy modulates parafoveal-on-foveal effects in sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 548–562. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.625094
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar