The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resoluti

Psychological iew Copyright1994bytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Inc.1994.0I.No.4.676-703 0033-295X/94/53.00LexicalNatureofSyntacticAmbiguityResolutionMaryellenC.MacDonald,NealJ.Pearlmutter,andMarkS.SeidenbergAmbiguityresolutionisacentralprobleminlanguagecomprehension.Lexicalandsyntacticambi-guitiesarestandardlyassumedtoinvolvedifferenttypesofknowledgerepresentationsandbere-solvedbydifferentmechanisms.Analternativeaccountisprovidedinwhichbothtypesofambiguityderivefromaspectsoflexicalrepresentationandareresolvedbythesameprocessingmechanisms.Reinterpretingsyntacticambiguityresolutionasaformoflexicalambiguityresolutionobviatestheneedforspecialparsingprinciplestoaccountforsyntacticinterpretationpreferences,reconcilesanumberofapparentlyconflictingresultsconcerningtherolesoflexicalandcontextualinformationinsentenceprocessing,explainsdifferencesamongambiguitiesintermsofeaseofresolution,andprovidesamoreunifiedaccountoflanguagecomprehensionthanwaspreviouslyavailable.Oneoftheprincipalgoalsforatheoryoflanguagecompre- thirdsectionweconsiderprocessingissues:howinformationishensionistoexplainhowthereaderorlistenercopeswitha processedwithinthementallexiconandhowcontextualinfor-pervasiveambiguityproblem.Languagesarestructuredat mationcaninfluenceprocessing.Thecentralprocessingmech-multiplelevelssimultaneously,includinglexical,phonological, anismweinvokeistheconstraintsatisfactionprocessthathasmorphological,syntactic,andtextordiscourselevels.Atany beenrealizedininteractive-activationmodels(e.g.,Elman&givenpointinasentence,theavailableinformationcanbeam- McClelland,1984).Inthefourthsection,weshowthatthesamebiguousatmanylevels.Totakeasimpleexample,theword principlesgoverntheprocessingofthethreetypesofstructures,iaaichisambiguousbetweenalternativemeanings(e.g.,atime- thattheseprinciplesprovideabasisforresolvingapparentlypiece,toobserve).Itisalsoambiguousinitsgrammatical conflictingfindingsintheliterature,andthattheprincipleshavecategory(nounorverb).Theverbsenseofwatchcreatesfurther generatedsomenovelpredictionsthathavebeentestedinrecentambiguitybecauseitcanparticipateinseveraldifferentsyntac- studies.Weconcludewithadiscussionofthekindsofresearchticstructures,includingtransitive(e.g.,JohnwatchedMary) questionssuggestedbythisnewframework.andintransitive(e.g.,Johnwatchedintendv).Comprehension Thisapproachbuildsonconsiderableearlierresearchinsen-involvesresolvingmanyambiguitiessoastoconvergeonone tencecomprehension.Theideathatsyntacticambiguityreso-interpretation,usuallytheoneintendedbythespeakerorwriter. lutionisguidedbylexicalinformationwasproposedbyFord,ThepurposeofthisarticleistodescribethebasicprinciplesBresnan,andKaplan(1982)andhasbeenaddressedextensivelyunderlyingaatheoryofsentencecomprehensionthatexplainsbyTanenhausandcolleaguesinanimportantseriesofarticleshowthisoutcomeisachieved,giventhetypesofinformation(Boland&Tanenhaus,1991;Carlson&Tanenhaus,1988;Ta-thatareavailableandtheconditionsunderwhichsentencesarenenhaus&Carlson,1989;Trueswell&Tanenhaus,inpress;processed.Thearticlehasfivemainsections.First,webrieflyTrueswell,Tanenhaus,&Garnsey,1994;Trueswell,Tanenhaus,summarizepreviousresearchonlexicalandsyntacticambigu-&Kello,1993).Thesestudieshaveraisedmanyoftheissuesitiesthathasledtotheoriesthattreatthemmuchdifferently,asconsideredinthisarticleandgreatlyinfluencedourapproach.wellaschallengestothisdichotomy.Inthesecondsection,weBever(1970)providedsomeoftheearliestobservationsaboutdeveloptheideathataunifiedtreatmentofthetwotypesoflexicaleffectsinsyntacticambiguityresolution,andhisper-ambiguitiescarbeachievedbecausethesyntacticambiguitiesceptualstrategieswereanearlyfrequency-basedaccount.Thearecausedbyambiguitiesassociatedwithlexicalitems.Inthe viewthatsentenceprocessinginvolvesconstraintsatisfactionmechanismshasbeenproposedbyanumberofpeople,mostprominentlyMcClelland(1987;St.John&McClelland,1990).MaryellenC.MacDonaldandMarkS.Seidenberg,PrograminNeu-Ourapproachisalsosimilarinspirittothecompetitionmodelral,Informational,andBehavioralScience,UniversityofSouthernCal-ofMacWhinneyandBates(1989)andincludesspecificpropos-ifornia;NealJ.Pearlmutter,DepartmentofPsychology,Universityofalsaboutthenatureofthecuesthatarecentraltotheiraccount.Illinois,Champaign. Ourgoalhasbeentodevelopanintegrativetheoreticalframe-ThisresearchwassupportedbyNationalScienceFoundation(NSF) workthatrationalizesmuchoftheliteratureandprovidesanGrantDBS-9120415,agrantfromtheZumbergeResearchInnovation orientationforfutureresearch.FundattheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia,anNSFpredoctoralfel-lowship,andNationalInstitutesofHealthFellowship1-F32-MH10592-01.NationalInstituteofMentalHealthGrantMH-47566, LexicalVersusSyntacticAmbiguityResolutionandNationalInstituteonAgingGrantAG-10109.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoMary-Lexicalambiguityresearchhasaddressedhowthereader-ellenC.MacDonald,HedcoNeuroscienceBuilding,UniversityoflistenerdeterminesthecontextuallyappropriatemeaningofaSouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles,California90089-2520.Electronicwordwithmultipl