Biomedical subjects

N J Pearlmutter

Publications and source records attributed to N J Pearlmutter.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Recency in verb phrase attachment.

Four experiments investigated attachment preferences in constructions involving 3 verb phrases (VPs) followed by an attaching modifier. Readers preferred attachment to the most recent (lowest) VP site overall and preferred to attach the modifier to the middle VP over the highest VP, demonstrating a monotonic recency-based preference ordering. This pattern could not be attributed to lexical or plausibility-based preferences. The results contrast with the pattern for relative clause attachment into 3 potential noun phrase sites, where the preference ordering is nonmonotonic (e.g., E. Gibson, N. J. Pearlmutter, E. Canseco-Gonzalez, & G. Hickok, 1996), and support the multiple-constraint theory described by E. Gibson and N. J. Pearlmutter (1998), which proposes that recency/locality and a secondary factor, predicate proximity, combine with lexical, grammatical, prosodic, and contextual constraints to determine attachment preferences.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Linear versus hierarchical agreement feature processing in comprehension.

Two experiments examined whether syntactic number features are tracked during comprehension with a linear slot-based memory system or with a hierarchical feature-passing system. In a construction such as The pond near the trail(s) for the horse(s) was ..., a linear account of subject-number tracking predicts greater interference from horses (N3), whereas a hierarchical account predicts greater interference from trails (N2). Experiment 1 used singular-head subject noun phrases (e.g., pond) and showed equal interference from N2 and N3, failing to differentiate between linear and hierarchical accounts. Experiment 2 used plural-head subjects and revealed more interference from N2 than N3. The pattern across the experiments accords with the ideas that (1) feature-tracking is hierarchical (e.g., Vigliocco & Nicol, 1997), (2) plurals are marked (e.g., Eberhard, 1997), and (3) subject-number information decays across intervening number-marked elements.

Humans↗

PubMed2000

Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing.

This paper discusses ways of determining whether the human parser is serial maintaining at most, one structural interpretation at each parse state, or whether it is parallel, maintaining more than one structural interpretation in at least some circumstances. We make four points. The first two counterclaims made by Lewis (2000): (1) that the availability of alternative structures should not vary as a function of the disambiguating material in some ranked parallel models; and (2) that parallel models predict a slow down during the ambiguous region for more syntactically ambiguous structures. Our other points concern potential methods for seeking experimental evidence relevant to the serial/parallel question. We discuss effects of the plausibility of a secondary structure in the ambiguous region (Pearlmutter & Mendelsohn, 1999) and suggest examining the distribution of reaction times in the disambiguating region.

Cognition↗

PubMed1999

Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish.

One experiment provided evidence in support of Gibson, Pearlmutter, Canseco-Gonzalez, and Hickok's (1996) claim that a recency preference applies to Spanish relative clause attachments, contrary to the claim made by Cuetos and Mitchell (1988). Spanish speakers read stimuli involving either two or three potential attachment sites in which the same lexical content of the two-site conditions appeared in a different structural configuration in the three-site conditions. High attachment was easier than low attachment when only two sites were present, but low attachment was preferred over high attachment, which was in turn preferred over middle attachment, when three sites were present. The experiment replicated earlier results and showed that (1) attachment preferences are determined in part by a preference to attach recently/low, and (2) lexical biases are insufficient to explain attachment preferences.

Adult↗

PubMed1994

The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected].

Ambiguity resolution is a central problem in language comprehension. Lexical and syntactic ambiguities are standardly assumed to involve different types of knowledge representations and be resolved by different mechanisms. An alternative account is provided in which both types of ambiguity derive from aspects of lexical representation and are resolved by the same processing mechanisms. Reinterpreting syntactic ambiguity resolution as a form of lexical ambiguity resolution obviates the need for special parsing principles to account for syntactic interpretation preferences, reconciles a number of apparently conflicting results concerning the roles of lexical and contextual information in sentence processing, explains differences among ambiguities in terms of ease of resolution, and provides a more unified account of language comprehension than was previously available.

Cognition↗