Advertisement

Thematic Structures and Sentence Comprehension

  • Laurie A. Stowe
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 7)

Abstract

This paper will discuss the concept of thematic roles and their possible role in sentence comprehension. Thematic roles (Gruber, 1976; Fillmore, 1969; Jackendoff, 1972; Chomsky, 1981, 1982) relate arguments of a word, such as the object of a verb, to the meaning of that word. For instance, the object of put is a theme, or affected object; it is the entity that is moved when an act of putting takes place. Within the context of examining the role played in syntactic comprehension by thematic roles, several other issues about the structures of language comprehension will be considered.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Relative Clause Sentence Comprehension Main Clause Thematic Role 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aaronson, D., and Scarborough, H. (1976). ‘Performance theories for sentence coding: Some quantitative evidence’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2, 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. M. (1977). On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, G., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension’. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic Relations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clifton, C., Jr., Frazier, L., and Connine, C. (1984). ‘Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23, 696–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowart, W. (1983). Reference Relations and Syntactic Processing: Evidence of a Pronoun’s Influence on a Syntactic Decision that Affects Word Naming. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  9. Crain, S., and Fodor, J. D. (1985). ‘How can grammars help parsers?’ In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crain, S., and Steedman, M. (1985). ‘On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor’. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ferreira, F. (1985). The Role of Context in Resolving Syntactic Ambiguity. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  12. Ferreira, F., and Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). ‘The independence of syntactic processing’. Journal of Memory and Learning 25, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fillmore, C. (1968). ‘The case for case’. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., and Kaplan, R. (1983). ‘A competence-based theory of syntactic closure’. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Forster, K. I. (1979). ‘Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor’. In W. E. Cooper and E. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycho linguistic Essays Presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Forster, K. I. (1985). ‘Binding, plausibility and modularity’. Paper presented at the Hampshire Workshop on Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Processing, June, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  19. Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (1982). ‘Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences’. Cognitive Psychology 14, 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freedman, S. A., and Forster, K. I. (1985). ‘The psychological status of over-generated sentences’. Cognition 19, 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gruber, J. (1976). Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jackendoff, R. (1976). Toward an explanatory semantic representation’. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 89–150.Google Scholar
  24. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, R. (1985). ‘Multiple subcategorization and the θ-criterion: The case of climb’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy, A., and Murray, W. S. (1984). ‘Inspection times for words in syntactically ambiguous sentences under three presentation conditions’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, 833–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kurtzman, H. S. (1984). Studies in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Marcus, M. (1980). A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Marslen-Wilson, M., and Tyler, L. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language comprehension’. Cognition 8, 1–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ostler, N. (1980). A Theory of Case-Linking and Agreement. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  32. Ratcliff, J. E. (1986). ‘Processing semantically anomalous sentences: A test of the psychological reality of selectional restrictions’. Unpublished paper, Deakin University.Google Scholar
  33. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., and 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, 358–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slobin, D. (1966). ‘Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stowe, L. A., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (In progress). ‘Understanding WH-clauses: On-line use of lexical and semantic information in sentence comprehension’. Unpublished paper, Monash University.Google Scholar
  36. Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Tanenhaus, M. K., Stowe, L. A., and Carlson, G. (1985). ‘Lexical expectation and pragmatics in parsing filler-gap constructions’. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Association. Google Scholar
  38. Tyler, L., and Marslen-Wilson, W. (1977). ‘The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 683–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wanner, E., and Maratsos, M. (1978). ‘An ATN approach to comprehension’. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurie A. Stowe
    • 1
  1. 1.Monash UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations