The failure to use gender information in parsing: A comment on van Berkum, Brown, and Hagoort (1999)

Brysbaert, M. and Mitchell, D.C. (2000) The failure to use gender information in parsing: A comment on van Berkum, Brown, and Hagoort (1999). [Journal (Paginated)]

Full text available as:



We critically review the empirical evidence published by van Berkum, Brown and Hagoort (1999a, 1999b) against syntax-first models of sentence parsing. According to van Berkum et al., discourse factors and word gender information are used instantaneously to guide the parser. First, we note that the density of the experimental trials (relative to fillers) and the slow presentation rate of the van Berkum et al. design seem likely to have elicited the use of tactics involving rapid re-analysis of the material. Second, we present new data from a questionnaire study showing that the grammatical gender information of a relative pronoun in Dutch is often completely ignored, even during the wrap-up at the end of the sentence.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Keywords:sentence parsing
Subjects:Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
ID Code:3445
Deposited By:brysbaert, Dr. marc
Deposited On:04 Mar 2004
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:55

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D.C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.

Coulson, S., King, J., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain responses to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 493-513.

Ferreira, F. & Henderson, J.M. (1999). Good enough representations in language and perception. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference in Edinburgh, September 1999.

Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD Dissertation, Univerisity of Connecticutt. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hove UK: Erlbaum.

Frazier, L. & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Grondelaers, S. & Brysbaert, M. (1996). De distributie van het presentatieve er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 1, 280-305.

Gunter, T.C., Stowe, L.A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660-676.

Hahne, A. & Friederici, A.D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194-205.

McClelland, J.L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3-36). Hove UK: Erlbaum.

Mitchell, D.C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601-618). Hove UK: Erlbaum.

Mitchell, D.C. (1989). Verb guidance and other lexical effects in parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI123-154,

Mitchell, D.C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (in press). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of Construal Theory. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process. Oxford: Elsevier.

Mitchell, D.C., Corley, M.M.B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 69-88.

Mitchell, D.C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M.M.B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.

Osterhout, L. & Hagoort, P. (1999). A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean your are part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 1-14.

Pickering, M.J. & Branigan, H.P. (1999), Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 136-141.

Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.

Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Garnsey, S.M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.

Traxler, M.J., Pickering, M.J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.

van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M., & Hagoort, P. (1999a). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from Even-Related Potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 147-182,

van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M., & Hagoort, P. (1999b). When does gender constrain parsing? Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 555-571,


Repository Staff Only: item control page