Lyn Frazier’s Contributions to Psycholinguistics: An Appreciation
The authors of this introductory chapter express their gratitude for the many contributions Lyn Frazier has made to the field of psycholinguistics and to her students, colleagues, and friends. Her introduction of garden-path theory gave new life to the study of sentence comprehension and shaped research on the topic for many years. Throughout her career, she has provided stimulating, often controversial, analyses of how ellipses are processed and of the roles semantics and prosody play in understanding language. Her lively curiosity has led her to explore many other topics in psycholinguistics, including effects of discourse structure and of not-at-issue content, among others. The chapter concludes with an appreciation of the impact she has had as a mentor, colleague, and collaborator, as well as a few remembrances of Lyn’s particular style as a scientist.
- Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
- Frazier, L. (2008). Processing ellipsis: A processing solution to the undergeneration problem. In C. Chang & H. Haynie (Eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 26, pp. 21–32). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
- Frazier, L. (2012). Semantic processing. In Maienborn, C., Heusinger, K. V., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Handbook of semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3, pp. 2703–2724). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gough, P. B., & Diehl, R. L. (1978). Experimental psycholiguistics. In W. O. Dingwall (Ed.), A survey of linguistic science (2nd ed., pp. 247–266). Stamford, CT: Greylock Publishers.Google Scholar
- Neeleman, A., & van de Koot, H. (2010). Theoretical validity and psychological reality of the grammatical code. In M. Everaert, T. Lentz, H. D. Mulder, O. Nilsen, & A. Zondervan (Eds.), The linguistics enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (pp. 150–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Press.Google Scholar
- Otero, C. (1972). Acceptable ungrammatical sentences in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(2), 233–242. www.jstor.org/stable/4177708.
- Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
- Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(83)90236-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Roberts, C. (1996/2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(6), 1–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6.
- Schafer, A. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
- Selkirk, E. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar