• Chater, N., Crocker, M., &Pickering, M. (1998). The rational analysis of inquiry: The case of parsing. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.),Rational models of cognition (pp. 441–468). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Chater, N., Oaksford, M., Nakisa, R., &Redington, M. (2003). Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,90, 63–86.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., &Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger.Cognitive Psychology,42, 368–407.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Clifton, C., Jr.,Staub, A., &Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.),Eye movements: A window on mind and brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  Google Scholar 

• Cutler, A., &Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension.Cognition,7, 49–59.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems.Human Factors,37, 32–64.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences.Cognitive Psychology,47, 164–203.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., &Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension.Current Directions in Psychological Science,11, 11–15.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ferreira, F., &Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 555–568.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Frazier, L. (1979).On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.

  Google Scholar 

• Frazier, L., &Clifton, C., Jr. (1996).Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Gibson, E., &Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,29, 231–240.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., &the ABC Research Group (1999).Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Gilboy, E., Sopena, J.-M., Clifton, C., Jr., &Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs.Cognition,54, 131–167.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., &Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension.Memory & Cognition,10, 597–602.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gorrell, P. (1995).Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Green, M. J., &Mitchell, D. C. (2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,55, 1–17.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 530–538.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lewis, R. L. (2000). Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: Empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,29, 241–248.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review,101, 676–703.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Marcus, M. P. (1980).A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Marcus, M. P., Hindle, D., &Fleck, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. InProceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 129–136). Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  Google Scholar 

• McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in online sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 283–312.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mistler-Lachman, J. L. (1972). Levels of comprehension in processing of normal and ambiguous sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 614–623.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Otero, J., &Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read.Psychological Science,3, 229–235.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Reder, L. M., &Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?Journal of Memory & Language,30, 385–406.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sanford, A. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation.Mind & Language,17, 188–206.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sanford, A. J., &Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,6, 382–386.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment.Psychological Review,63, 129–138.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading.Journal of Memory & Language,54, 574–591.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Singer, M., &Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences.Cognitive Psychology,30, 1–38.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., &Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourse understanding.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 507–524.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Spivey, M. J., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1521–1543.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Spivey-Knowlton, M. [J.], &Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints.Cognition,55, 227–267.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Sturt, P., &Crocker, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis.Language & Cognitive Processes,11, 449–494.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sturt, P., &Crocker, M. W. (1997). Thematic monotonicity.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,26, 297–322.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., Scheepers, C., &Crocker, M. W. (2001). The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort?Journal of Memory & Language,45, 283–307.

  Article  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, 882–888.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., &Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,136, 64–81.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Tabor, W., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing.Cognitive Science,23, 491–515.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Townsend, D. J., &Bever, T. G. (1991). The use of higher-level constraints in monitoring for a change in speaker demonstrates functionally distinct levels of representation in discourse comprehension.Language & Cognitive Processes,6, 49–77.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Townsend, D. J., Hoover, M., &Bever, T. G. (2000). Word-monitoring tasks interact with levels of representation during speech comprehension.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,29, 265–274.

  Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Traxler, M. J. (2007). Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis.Memory & Cognition,35, 1107–1121.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., &Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 558–592.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., &Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,52, 284–307.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., &Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraintbased and two-stage models.Journal of Memory & Language,45, 225–258.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Weber-McRoy, S., &Hirst, G. (1990). Race-based parsing and syntactic disambiguation.Cognitive Science,14, 313–353.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Weinberg, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes east.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,22, 339–364.

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references