Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005.
Carlson, K., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2762.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Clifton, C., Jr., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45(Pt 2), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309020450020101.
Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2017). Context effects in discourse: The question under discussion. Discourse Processes, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2017.1330029.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 437–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02143161.
Frazier, L. (1998). Getting there (slowly). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023241830722.
Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.
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.
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.
Frazier, L. (2015). Two interpretive systems for natural language? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9328-0.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(4), 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386474.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00034.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8(2), 154–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.995109.
Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Randall, J. (1983). Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 13(2), 187–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90022-7.
Frazier, L., Dillon, B., & Clifton, C. (2017). Together they stand: Interpreting not-at-issue content. Language and Speech, 0023830917714608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830917714608.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(89)90037-5.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(87)90137-9.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(90)90071-7.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.003.
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.
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.
Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 44(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676.
Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 17(11), 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044708.
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.
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.
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309000430010301.
Seidenberg, M. S., & Plaut, D. C. (2014). Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science, 38(6), 1190–1228. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12147.
Selkirk, E. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Oxford: Blackwell.
Smolensky, P. (1999). Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science, 23, 589–613.
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.2.314.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clifton, C., Dillon, B., Staub, A. (2019). Lyn Frazier’s Contributions to Psycholinguistics: An Appreciation. In: Carlson, K., Clifton, Jr., C., Fodor, J. (eds) Grammatical Approaches to Language Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01562-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01563-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)