Lyn Frazier’s Contributions to Psycholinguistics: An Appreciation

  • Charles CliftonJr.Email author
  • Brian Dillon
  • Adrian Staub
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)


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.


  1. Arregui, A., Clifton, C. J., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 232–246. Scholar
  2. Carlson, K., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(1), 58–81. Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58. Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  6. Clifton, C., Jr., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45(Pt 2), 87–114. Scholar
  7. Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2017). Context effects in discourse: The question under discussion. Discourse Processes, 1–8. Scholar
  8. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  10. Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 437–468. Scholar
  11. Frazier, L. (1998). Getting there (slowly). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 123–146. Scholar
  12. Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Frazier, L. (2015). Two interpretive systems for natural language? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 7–25. Scholar
  16. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(4), 499–520. Scholar
  18. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax, 4(1), 1–22. Scholar
  19. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8(2), 154–207. Scholar
  20. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2015). Without his shirt off he saved the child from almost drowning: Interpreting an uncertain input. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 635–647. Scholar
  21. Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Randall, J. (1983). Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 13(2), 187–222. Scholar
  22. Frazier, L., Dillon, B., & Clifton, C. (2017). Together they stand: Interpreting not-at-issue content. Language and Speech, 0023830917714608. Scholar
  23. Frazier, L., & Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344. Scholar
  24. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325. Scholar
  25. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210. Scholar
  26. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(5), 505–526. Scholar
  27. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181–200. Scholar
  28. Grant, M., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2012). The role of non-actuality implicatures in processing elided constituents. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 326–343. Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Johnson, K. (2001). What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 439–479). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 44(1), 27–46. Scholar
  32. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. Scholar
  33. Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 17(11), 748–762. Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Otero, C. (1972). Acceptable ungrammatical sentences in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(2), 233–242.
  36. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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. Scholar
  39. Roberts, C. (1996/2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(6), 1–69.
  40. Schafer, A. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  41. Schafer, A., Carlson, K., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43(1), 75–105. Scholar
  42. Seidenberg, M. S., & Plaut, D. C. (2014). Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science, 38(6), 1190–1228. Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Smolensky, P. (1999). Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science, 23, 589–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Traxler, M. J., & Frazier, L. (2008). The role of pragmatic principles in resolving attachment ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 36(2), 314–328. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles CliftonJr.
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian Dillon
    • 2
  • Adrian Staub
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations