Connectionist Modeling of Experience-based Effects in Sentence ...
Connectionist Modeling of Experience-based Effects in Sentence ...
Connectionist Modeling of Experience-based Effects in Sentence ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Bibliography<br />
F. Reali and M. H. Christiansen. Process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> relative clauses is made easier by frequency<br />
<strong>of</strong> occurrence. Journal <strong>of</strong> Memory and Language, 57(1):1–23, 2007a.<br />
F. Reali and M. H. Christiansen. Word chunk frequencies affect the process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> pronom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
object-relative clauses. The Quarterly Journal <strong>of</strong> Experimental Psychology, 60(2):<br />
161–170, 2007b.<br />
R. Roberts and E. Gibson. Individual differences <strong>in</strong> sentence memory. Journal <strong>of</strong> Psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
Research, 31(6):573–598, Nov. 2002.<br />
P. Rodriguez. Simple Recurrent Networks Learn Context-Free and Context-Sensitive<br />
Languages by Count<strong>in</strong>g, volume 13. MIT Press, 2001.<br />
D. L. T. Rohde. A <strong>Connectionist</strong> Model <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sentence</strong> Comprehension and Production.<br />
PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.<br />
D. L. T. Rohde. The simple language generator: Encod<strong>in</strong>g complex languages with<br />
simple grammars (Tech). Mellon University, Department <strong>of</strong> Computer Science, pages<br />
99–123, 1999.<br />
D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland. On Learn<strong>in</strong>g the Past Tenses <strong>of</strong> English Verbs.<br />
California University San Diego, La Jolla Center for Research <strong>in</strong> Language, 1985.<br />
H. Schriefers, A. D. Friederici, and K. Kuhn. The process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> locally ambiguous relative<br />
clauses <strong>in</strong> german. Journal <strong>of</strong> Memory and Language, 34(4):499–520, 1995.<br />
M. S. Seidenberg and J. L. McClelland. A distributed, developmental model <strong>of</strong> word<br />
recognition and nam<strong>in</strong>g. Psychological Review, 96(4):523–568, 1989.<br />
M. Spivey-Knowlton. Quantitative predictions from a constra<strong>in</strong>t-<strong>based</strong> theory <strong>of</strong> syntactic<br />
ambiguity resolution. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the 1993 <strong>Connectionist</strong> Models Summer<br />
School, pages 130–137. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.<br />
K. Stromswold, D. Caplan, N. Alpert, and S. Rauch. Localization <strong>of</strong> syntactic comprehension<br />
by positron emission tomography. Bra<strong>in</strong> and Language, 52(3):452–473,<br />
1996.<br />
W. Tabor, C. Juliano, and M. K. Tanenhaus. Pars<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a dynamical system: An<br />
attractor-<strong>based</strong> account <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>of</strong> lexical and structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> sentence<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3):211–271, 1997.<br />
W. Tabor, B. Galantucci, and D. Richardson. <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> merely local syntactic coherence<br />
on sentence process<strong>in</strong>g. Journal <strong>of</strong> Memory and Language, 50(4):355–370, May 2004.<br />
W. L. Taylor. Cloze procedure: A new tool for measur<strong>in</strong>g readability. Journalism<br />
Quarterly, 30(4):415–433, 1953.<br />
XV
Change language