---
abstract: 'Psycholinguistics has traditionally been defined as the study of how we process units of language such as letters, words and sentences. But what about other units? This dissertation concerns itself with short lexical sequences called n- grams, longer than words but shorter than most sentences. N-grams can be phrases (such as the 3-gram "the great divide") or just fragments (such as the 4- gram means "nothing to a"). Words are often thought to be the universal, atomic building block of longer lexical sequences, but n-grams are equally capable of carrying meaning and being combined to create any sentence. Are n-grams more than just the sum of their parts (the sum of their words)? How do language users process n-grams when they are asked to read them or produce them? Using evidence that I have gathered, I will address these and other questions with the goal of better understanding n-gram processing.'
altloc:
  - http://hdl.handle.net/10402/era.26026
chapter: ~
commentary: ~
commref: ~
confdates: ~
conference: ~
confloc: ~
contact_email: ~
creators_id:
  - cyrus.shaoul@ualberta.ca
creators_name:
  - family: Shaoul
    given: Cyrus
    honourific: Dr.
    lineage: ''
date: 2012-04-02
date_type: completed
datestamp: 2013-05-04 22:47:49
department: Department of Psychology
dir: disk0/00/00/88/31
edit_lock_since: ~
edit_lock_until: 0
edit_lock_user: ~
editors_id: []
editors_name: []
eprint_status: archive
eprintid: 8831
fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png;/8831/1/Shaoul_Cyrus_Dissertation.pdf
full_text_status: public
importid: ~
institution: University of Alberta
isbn: ~
ispublished: pub
issn: ~
item_issues_comment: []
item_issues_count: ~
item_issues_description: []
item_issues_id: []
item_issues_reported_by: []
item_issues_resolved_by: []
item_issues_status: []
item_issues_timestamp: []
item_issues_type: []
keywords: 'n-grams, frequency, mutual information, lexical probability'
lastmod: 2013-05-04 22:47:49
latitude: ~
longitude: ~
metadata_visibility: show
note: ~
number: ~
pagerange: ~
pubdom: FALSE
publication: ~
publisher: ~
refereed: TRUE
referencetext: "Acheson, D., & MacDonald, M. (2009). Verbal working memory and lan-\r\nguage production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal\r\ninformation. Psychological bulletin, 135 (1), 50.\r\nAgresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Hoboken, NJ, USA:\r\nJohn Wiley & Sons Inc.\r\nAkaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE\r\nTransactions on Automatic Control, 19 (6), 716–723.\r\nAltmann, G., & Mirkovi ́\r\nc, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human\r\nsentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33 (4), 583–609.\r\nAnderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review,\r\n89 (4), 369–406.\r\nAnderson, J. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum.\r\nAndrews, S., & Bond, R. (2009). Lexical expertise and reading skill: Bottom-\r\nup and top-down processing of lexical ambiguity. Reading and Writing,\r\n22 (6), 687–711.\r\nAngele, B., & Rayner, K. (2011). Parafoveal processing of word n+2 dur-\r\ning reading: Do the preceding words matter? Journal of Experimental\r\nPsychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37 (4), 1210.\r\nArnon, I., & Clark, E. V. (2011). Why Brush Your Teeth Is Better Than\r\nTeeth – Children’s Word Production Is Facilitated in Familiar Sentence-\r\nFrames. Language Learning and Development, 7 (2), 107.\r\nArnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-\r\nword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (1), 67–82.\r\nBaayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to\r\nstatistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\r\nBaayen, R. H. (2010a). Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A dis-\r\ncriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5 (3), 436–461.\r\nBaayen, R. H. (2010b). A real experiment is a factorial experiment? The\r\nMental Lexicon, 5 (1), 149–157.\r\nBaayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling\r\nwith crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory\r\nand Language, 59 (4), 390–412.\r\nBaayen, R. H., Feldman, L., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences\r\non the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of\r\nMemory and Language, 55, 290–313.\r\nBaayen, R. H., & Hendrix, P. (2011). Sidestepping the combinatorial ex-\r\nplosion: Towards a processing model based on discriminative learning.\r\nProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.\r\nBaayen, R. H., Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2010). Frequency effects in\r\ncompound processing. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Compounding.\r\nAmsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.\r\nBaayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International\r\nJournal of Psychological Research, 3.2, 12-28.\r\nBaayen, R. H., Milin, P., Djurdjevic, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An\r\namorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension\r\nbased on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118 (3),\r\n438–481.\r\nBaetes, E., & Elman, J. (1993). Connectionism and the study of change. Brain\r\nDovelopement and Cognition, 420–440.\r\nBaker, J., Deng, L., Glass, J., Khudanpur, S., Lee, C. hui, Morgan, N., et\r\nal. (2009). Developments and directions in speech recognition and un-\r\nderstanding, part 1 [DSP education]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine,\r\n26 (3), 75–80.\r\nBalota, D. A., Pilotti, M., & Cortese, M. J. (2001). Subjective frequency\r\nestimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition, 29 (4),\r\n639–647.\r\nBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, US: W.H.\r\nFreeman.\r\nBanks, W. (1977). Encoding and processing of symbolic information in com-\r\nparative judgments. The psychology of learning and motivation, 11 (101-\r\n159).\r\nBannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language\r\nlearning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of Four-Word\r\ncombinations. Psychological Science, 19 (3), 241–248.\r\nBar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to\r\ngenerate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (7), 280–289.\r\nBar, M. (2009). The proactive brain: memory for predictions. Philosophi-\r\ncal Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364 (1521),\r\n1235.\r\nBates, D. M. (in preparation). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. Springer.\r\nBattig, W., & Montague, W. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56\r\ncategories a replication and extension of the connecticut category norms.\r\nJournal of Experimental Psychology(392).\r\nBeattie, G., & Butterworth, B. (1979). Contextual probability and word\r\nfrequency as determinants of pauses and errors in spontaneous speech.\r\nLanguage and Speech, 22 (3), 201.\r\nBell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009).\r\nPredictability effects on durations of content and function words in con-\r\nversational english. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (1), 92–111.\r\nBelsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (2004). Regression diagnostics:\r\nIdentifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Hoboken, NJ,\r\nUSA: Wiley-Interscience.\r\nBiber, D. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lan-\r\nguage and Computers, 26, 181–190.\r\nBiber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at ...: Lexical bundles in\r\nuniversity teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25 (3), 371–405.\r\nBicknell, K., & Levy, R. (2010). Rational eye movements in reading combining\r\nuncertainty about previous words with contextual probability. In Pro-\r\nceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society.\r\nBinder, J., McKiernan, K., Parsons, M., Westbury, C., Possing, E., Kaufman,\r\nJ., et al. (2003). Neural correlates of lexical access during visual word\r\nrecognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (3), 372–393.\r\nBlock, C., & Baldwin, C. (2010). Cloze probability and completion norms\r\nfor 498 sentences: Behavioral and neural validation using event-related\r\npotentials. Behavior research methods, 42 (3), 665–670.\r\nBloom, P., & Fischler, I. (1980). Completion norms for 329 sentence contexts.\r\nMemory & Cognition, 8 (6), 631–642.\r\nBloor, D. (1983). Wittgenstein: A social theory of knowledge. London, UK:\r\nMacMillan.\r\nBod, R. (2009). From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic Analogy-Based\r\nmodel of language learning. Cognitive Science, 33 (5), 752–793.\r\nBormuth, J. (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading research quarterly,\r\n79–132.\r\nBox, G. E., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations (with\r\ndiscussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 26 (211-\r\n252), 57.\r\nBrainerd, C., & Reyna, V. (2002). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory.\r\nCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (5), 164–169.\r\nBrants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram version 1. Philadelphia, PA\r\nUSA: Linguistic Data Consortium.\r\nBrants, T., & Franz, A. (2009). Web 1t 5-gram, 10 european languages version\r\n1. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.\r\nBreiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine learning, 45 (1), 5–32.\r\nBunce, S., Izzetoglu, M., Izzetoglu, K., Onaral, B., & Pourrezaei, K. (2006).\r\nFunctional near-infrared spectroscopy. Engineering in Medicine and Bi-\r\nology Magazine, IEEE, 25 (4), 54–62.\r\nBurgess, C. (1998). From simple associations to the building blocks of lan-\r\nguage: Modeling meaning in memory with the HAL model. Behavior\r\nResearch Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 188–198.\r\nBurnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel\r\ninference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York, NY,\r\nUSA: Springer Verlag.\r\nBybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword\r\nsequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (02), 215–221.\r\nBybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of con-stituency: the reduction of ’don’t’ in English.(Statistical data included).\r\nLinguistics: an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences.\r\nChi, M. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some\r\nmisconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 161–\r\n199.\r\nChi, M., Roscoe, R., Slotta, J., Roy, M., & Chase, C. (2011). Misconceived\r\ncausal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science.\r\nChomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York, US: Columbia\r\nUniversity Press.\r\nChomsky, N. (2005). Rules and representations. New York, US: Columbia\r\nUniv Pr.\r\nChristensen, R. H. B.\r\n(2011).\r\nOrdinal—regression models for or-\r\ndinal data.\r\n(R package version 2010.12-15 http://www.cran.r-\r\nproject.org/package=ordinal/)\r\nChristiansen, M. H., Conway, C. M., & Onnis, L. (in press). Similar neural\r\ncorrelates for language and sequential learning: Evidence from event-\r\nrelated brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes.\r\nChurch, K. W., & Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual infor-\r\nmation, and lexicography. Comput. Linguist., 16 (1), 22–29.\r\nCohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mah-\r\nwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.\r\nCollins, A., & Loftus, E. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic\r\nprocessing. Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407.\r\nColombo, L., Pasini, M., & Balota, D. A. (2006). Dissociating the influence\r\nof familiarity and meaningfulness from word frequency in naming and\r\nlexical decision performance. Memory & cognition, 34 (6), 1312.\r\nColumbus, G., Bolger, P., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Processing Multiword Units:\r\nDegrees of Idiomaticity Seen Through Eye Movement Data. (Paper pre-\r\nsented at the Seventh Conference of the Mental Lexicon. University of\r\nWindsor, Ontario, Canada, June 30th -.July 3rd, 2010.)\r\nColumbus, G., Bolger, P., & Baayen, R. H. (2011). Implications for language\r\nmodels: fixation and dwell times reveal important predictors for process-\r\ning multiword units. (Paper presented at the European Conference on\r\nEye Movement. Marseille, France, August 21st-25th, 2011)\r\nConklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed\r\nmore quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speak-\r\ners? Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 72.\r\nConnine, C. M., Mullennix, J., Shernoff, E., & Yelen, J. (1990). Word famil-\r\niarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal\r\nof Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16 (6),\r\n1084–1096.\r\nConway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S., & Pisoni, D. (2010). Implicit\r\nstatistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the\r\nkey. Cognition, 114 (3), 356–371.\r\nCowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term,\r\nand working memory? Progress in brain research, 169, 323–338.\r\nCriss, A., Aue, W., & Smith, L. (2010). The effects of word frequency and\r\ncontext variability in cued recall. Journal of Memory and Language.\r\nCrocker, M., Knoeferle, P., & Mayberry, M. (2010). Situated sentence pro-\r\ncessing: The coordinated interplay account and a neurobehavioral model.\r\nBrain and language, 112 (3), 189–201.\r\nCrowe, S. (1998). Decrease in performance on the verbal fluency test as a\r\nfunction of time: Evaluation in a young healthy sample. Journal of\r\nClinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20 (3), 391–401.\r\nDanks, D. (2003). Equilibria of the rescorla-wagner model. Journal of Math-\r\nematical Psychology, 47 (2), 109–121.\r\nDeese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions\r\nin immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58 (1), 17.\r\nDeLong, K., Urbach, T., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation\r\nduring language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity.\r\nNature Neuroscience, 8 (8), 1117.\r\nDennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA, USA: Little,\r\nBrown and Co.\r\nDiessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use,\r\nand diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25 (2), 104–123.\r\nDilkina, K., McClelland, J. L., & Plaut, D. C. (2010a). Are there mental\r\nlexicons? The role of semantics in lexical decision. Brain Research,\r\n1365, 66–81.\r\nDilkina, K., McClelland, J. L., & Plaut, D. C. (2010b). Are there mental\r\nlexicons? The role of semantics in lexical decision. Brain Research,\r\n1365, 66–81.\r\nDilkina, K., McClelland, J. L., & Plaut, D. C. (2010c, December). Are there\r\nmental lexicons? The role of semantics in lexical decision. Brain Re-\r\nsearch, 1365, 66–81.\r\nEllis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009). Formulaic language in native speak-\r\ners: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education.\r\nCorpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5 (1), 61–78.\r\nEllis, W. (1999). A source book of gestalt psychology (Vol. 2). London, UK:\r\nPsychology Press.\r\nElman, J. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14 (2), 211,\r\n179.\r\nElman, J. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical\r\nknowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive science, 33, 547–582.\r\nElman, J. (2011). Lexical knowledge without a lexicon? The Mental Lexicon,\r\n6:1, 1-33.\r\nEngbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). Swift: a dynam-\r\nical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review,\r\n112 (4), 777.\r\nErman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice\r\nprinciple. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse,\r\n20 (1), 29–62.\r\nFano, R. M., & Hawkins, D. (1961). Transmission of information: A statistical\r\ntheory of communications. American Journal of Physics, 29, 793.\r\nFillenbaum, S., Jones, L., & Rapoport, A. (1963). The predictability of words\r\nand their grammatical classes as a function of rate of deletion from a\r\nspeech transcript1. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,\r\n2 (2), 186–194.\r\nFinch, W. H., Chang, M., Davis, A. S., Holden, J. E., Rothlisberg, B. A., &\r\nMcIntosh, D. E. (2011). The prediction of intelligence in preschool chil-\r\ndren using alternative models to regression. Behavior Research Methods.\r\nFinn, P. (1977). Word frequency, information theory, and cloze performance:\r\nA transfer feature theory of processing in reading. Reading Research\r\nQuarterly, 508–537.\r\nFodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind (Vol. 341). Cambridge, MA., USA,\r\nUSA: MIT press.\r\nForster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language\r\nprocessor. In Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to\r\nmerrill garrett (pp. 27–85).\r\nForster, K. I., & Hector, J. (2002). Cascaded versus noncascaded models of\r\nlexical and semantic processing: Theturple effect. Memory & cognition,\r\n30 (7), 1106–1117.\r\nFrancis, W., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of english usage. Boston,\r\nMA, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.\r\nFrank, S. L., & Bod, R. (2011). Insensitivity of the Human Sentence-Processing\r\nSystem to Hierarchical Structure. Psychological Science, 22 (6), 829 –834.\r\nFrank, S. L., & Vigliocco, G. (in press). Sentence Comprehension as Mental\r\nSimulation: An Information-Theoretic Perspective. Information.\r\nFriedman, L., & Wall, M. (2005). Graphical views of suppression and mul-\r\nticollinearity in multiple linear regression. The American Statistician,\r\n59 (2), 127–136.\r\nGagn ́\r\ne, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the\r\nprocessing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational\r\nstructures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (1), 20–35.\r\nGeer, D. (2005). Statistical machine translation gains respect. Computer, 38,\r\n18–21.\r\nGernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions\r\nbetween lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy.\r\nJournal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113 (2), 256–281.\r\nGlenberg, A. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and brain sciences,\r\n20 (01), 1–19.\r\nGoldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work : the nature of generalization in\r\nlanguage. Oxford ;;New York: Oxford University Press.\r\nGregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D.\r\n(1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability\r\nin lexical production. In Proceedings of cls35 (Vol. 35, pp. 151–166).\r\nChicago, IL, USA: Chicago Linguistic Society.\r\nGriffin, Z., & Bock, K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship\r\nbetween lexical processing levels in spoken word production* 1,* 2,* 3.\r\nJournal of Memory and Language, 38 (3), 313–338.\r\nHahn, L. W., & Sivley, R. M. (2011). Entropy, semantic relatedness and\r\nproximity. Behavior Research Methods.\r\nHarris, Z. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago, IL, USA: Uni-\r\nversity of Chicago Press.\r\nHay, J., Pelucchi, B., Estes, K., & Saffran, J. (2011). Linking sounds to\r\nmeanings: infant statistical learning in a natural language. Cognitive\r\nPsychology, 63 (2), 93–106.\r\nJackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar,\r\nevolution. New York: Oxford University Press.\r\nJackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language pro-\r\ncessing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22.\r\nJones, M. N., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2007). Representing word meaning\r\nand order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological\r\nReview, 114, 1–37.\r\nJuhasz, B. J., & Berkowitz, R. N. (2011). Effects of morphological fami-\r\nlies on English compound word recognition: A multitask investigation.\r\nLanguage and Cognitive Processes, 26 (4), 653.\r\nJurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and\r\ndisambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20 (2), 137–194.\r\nJurafsky, D. (2003). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguisitics: Linguistic\r\ncomprehension and production. In R. Bod, J. Hay, & S. Jannedy (Eds.),\r\nProbabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA., USA: MIT Press. (Series:\r\nBradford book Bibliography note: Includes bibliographical references (p.\r\n[389]-436) and indexes Series: (Bradford book))\r\nKamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language\r\nand Linguistics Compass, 2 (4), 647.\r\nKilgarriff, A. (2005, August). Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus\r\nLinguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (2), 263–276.\r\nKilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G. (2011). Introduction to the special issue on\r\nthe web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29 (3), 333–347.\r\nKirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002). Visual statistical\r\nlearning in infancy: evidence for a domain general learning mechanism.\r\nCognition, 83 (2), B35–B42.\r\nKliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during\r\nreading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation\r\ndurations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135 (1), 12.\r\nKliegl, R., Risse, S., & Laubrock, J. (2007). Preview benefit and parafoveal-\r\non-foveal effects from word n+2. Journal of Experimental Psychology:\r\nHuman Perception and Performance, 33 (5), 1250.\r\nKohonen, T., & Somervuo, P. (1998). Self-organizing maps of symbol strings.\r\nNeurocomputing, 21 (1-3), 19–30.\r\nKuˇ\r\ncera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day\r\namerican english. Dartmouth, NH, USA: Dartmouth Publishing Group.\r\nKukona, A., Fang, S., Aicher, K., Chen, H., & Magnuson, J. (2011). The time\r\ncourse of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition.\r\nKuperberg, G. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Chal-\r\nlenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.\r\nKuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics\r\nin compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (7), 1089.\r\nKuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Processing trade-offs in\r\nthe reading of dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language,\r\n62 (2), 83–97.\r\nKuperman, V., Dambacher, M., Nuthmann, A., & Kliegl, R. (2010). The effect\r\nof word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading.\r\nQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1–20.\r\nKuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading\r\npolymorphemic Dutch compounds: toward a multiple route model of lex-\r\nical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception\r\nand Performance, 35 (3), 876–895.\r\nKutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word\r\nexpectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307 (5947), 161–163.\r\nKwisthout, J., Wareham, T., & Rooij, I. van. (2011). Bayesian intractability\r\nis not an ailment that approximation can cure. Cognitive Science.\r\nLandauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to plato’s problem: The\r\nlatent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and represen-\r\ntation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.\r\nLegge, G., Klitz, T., & Tjan, B. (1997). Mr. chips: an ideal-observer model\r\nof reading. Psychological review, 104 (3), 524.\r\nLemke, S., Tremblay, A., & Tucker, B. (2009). Function words of lexical\r\nbundles: The relation of frequency and reduction. The Journal of the\r\nAcoustical Society of America, 125, 2656.\r\nLevy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition,\r\n106 (3), 1126–1177.\r\nLevy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement\r\nevidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past lin-\r\nguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (50),\r\n21086–21090.\r\nLi, P. (2009). Lexical organization and competition in first and second\r\nlanguages: Computational and neural mechanisms. Cognitive science,\r\n33 (4), 629–664.\r\nLoewenstein, M., Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models\r\nof sentence processing - a strongly interactive model of natural language\r\ninterpretation. Cognitive Science, 23, 491–515.\r\nLund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spacesfrom lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumenta-\r\ntion, and Computers, 28, 203–208.\r\nMacdonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity.\r\nJournal of Memory and Language, 32 (5), 692–715.\r\nMatthews, D., & Bannard, C. (2010). Children’s production of unfamiliar\r\nword sequences is predicted by positional variability and latent classes\r\nin a large sample of Child-Directed speech. Cognitive Science, 34 (3),\r\n465–488.\r\nMcDonald, S., & Shillcock, R. (2001). Rethinking the word frequency effect:\r\nThe neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing.\r\nLanguage and Speech, 44 (3), 295.\r\nMcDonald, S., & Shillcock, R. (2003). Eye movements reveal the on-line com-\r\nputation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science,\r\n14 (6), 648.\r\nMcEvoy, C., Nelson, D. L., & Komatsu, T. (1999). What is the connection\r\nbetween true and false memories? the differential roles of interitem asso-\r\nciations in recall and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:\r\nLearning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (5), 1177.\r\nMcKenna, M. C. (1986). Cloze procedure as a memory-search process. Journal\r\nof Educational Psychology, 78, 433 - 440.\r\nMirman, D., Graf Estes, K., & Magnuson, J. (2010). Computational modeling\r\nof statistical learning: Effects of transitional probability versus frequency\r\nand links to word learning. Infancy, 15 (5), 471–486.\r\nMisyak, J., Christiansen, M., & Tomblin, B. J. (2010). Sequential expectations:\r\nThe role of prediction-based learning in language. Topics in Cognitive\r\nScience, 2 (1), 138–153.\r\nMitchell, D., Cuetos, F., Corley, M., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-\r\nbased models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained\r\n(nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,\r\n24 (6), 469–488.\r\nMoyer, R. S., & Dumais, S. T. (1978). Mental comparison. The Psychology of\r\nLearning & Motivation: Advances in Research & Theory, 12, 117.\r\nNelson, D. L., & McEvoy, C. (2007). Entangled associative structures and\r\ncontext. In Proceedings of the aaai spring symposium on quantum inter-\r\naction. Palo Alto, CA, USA: AAAI Press.\r\nNelson, D. L., McEvoy, C., & Dennis, S. (2000). What is free association and\r\nwhat does it measure? Memory & Cognition, 28 (6), 887–899.\r\nNelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The university\r\nof south florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms.\r\n(http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/)\r\nNelson, D. L., McKinney, V., Gee, N., & Janczura, G. (1998). Interpreting\r\nthe influence of implicitly activated memories on recall and recognition.\r\nPsychological Review, 105 (2), 299.\r\nNewell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA., USA:\r\nHarvard University Press.\r\nNewmeyer, F. (1996). Generative linguistics : a historical perspective. London\r\n;;New York: Routledge.\r\nNorris, D., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Perception as evidence accumulation and\r\nbayesian inference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experi-\r\nmental Psychology: General, 137 (3), 434–455.\r\nOsgood, C. E., Sebeok, T. A., Gardner, J., Carroll, J., Newmark, L., Ervin,\r\nS., et al. (1954). Psycholinguistics: a survey of theory and research\r\nproblems. [References]. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.\r\nOwens, M., O’Boyle, P., McMahon, J., Ming, J., & Smith, F. (1997). A\r\ncomparison of human and statistical language model performance using\r\nmissing-word tests. Language and Speech, 40 (4), 377.\r\nPerfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition.\r\nMahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.\r\nPerfetti, C. A., Hart, L., Verhoeven, L., Elbro, C., & Reitsma, P. (2002). The\r\nlexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of functional literacy, 11, 67–86.\r\nPiantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011, Mar). Word lengths are\r\noptimized for efficient communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 108 (9),\r\n3526-9.\r\nPickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to\r\nmake predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,\r\n11 (3), 105–110.\r\nPinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2009). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS.\r\nNew York, NY, USA: Springer Verlag.\r\nPinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002, November). The past and future of the\r\npast tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (11), 456–463.\r\nPluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. (2005b). Articulatory plan-\r\nning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica,\r\n62 (2-4), 146–159.\r\nPluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005a). Articulatory plan-\r\nning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica,\r\n62 (2-4), 146–159.\r\nPrior, A., & Bentin, S. (2003). Incidental formation of episodic associations:\r\nThe importance of sentential context. Memory & Cognition, 31 (2), 306–\r\n316.\r\nPrior, A., & Bentin, S. (2008). Word associations are formed incidentally\r\nduring sentential semantic integration. Acta Psychologica, 127 (1), 57–\r\n71.\r\nR Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for sta-\r\ntistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Com-\r\nputing.\r\nRaffone, A., & Leeuwen, C. van. (2003). Dynamic synchronization and chaos\r\nin an associative neural network with multiple active memories. Chaos:\r\nAn Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 13, 1090.\r\nRayner, K. (2009). Eye Movements in Reading: Models and Data. Journal of\r\neye movement research, 2 (5), 1–10.\r\nRayner, K., Inhoff, A. W., Morrison, R. E., Slowiaczek, M. L., & Bertera, J. H.\r\n(1981). Masking of foveal and parafoveal vision during eye fixations in\r\nreading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and\r\nPerformance, 7 (1), 167–179.\r\nRayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Mahwah, NJ,\r\nUS: Lawrence Erlbaum.\r\nRecchia, G., & Jones, M. (2009). More data trumps smarter algorithms:\r\ncomparing pointwise mutual information with latent semantic analysis.\r\nBehavior research methods, 41 (3), 647–656.\r\nRemillard, G. (2010). Implicit learning of fifth- and sixth-order sequential\r\nprobabilities. Memory & Cognition, 38 (7), 905–915.\r\nRoberts, M. A. J., & Chater, N. (2008). Using statistical smoothing to estimate\r\nthe psycholinguistic acceptability of novel phrases. Behavior Research\r\nMethods, 40 (1), 84–93.\r\nRodriguez, P. (2003). Comparing simple recurrent networks and n-Grams in\r\na large corpus. Applied Intelligence, 19 (1), 39–50.\r\nRoediger, H., & McDermott, K. (1995). Creating false memories: Remem-\r\nbering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology:\r\nLearning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (4), 803.\r\nRosen, V., & Engle, R. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in\r\nretrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126 (3), 211.\r\nRuff, R., Light, R., Parker, S., & Levin, H. (1997). The psychological construct\r\nof word fluency. Brain and Language, 57 (3), 394–405.\r\nSaffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by\r\n8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926 – 1928.\r\nSchwanenflugel, P., & LaCount, K. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope\r\nof facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental\r\nPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (2), 344.\r\nSeidenberg, M., & McClelland, J. (1989). A distributed, developmental model\r\nof word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96 (4), 523.\r\nSeidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental\r\nmodel of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96 (4),\r\n523–568.\r\nShannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System\r\nTechnical Journal, 27, 379–423.\r\nShannon, C. E. (1951). Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell System\r\nTechnical Journal, 30 (1), 50–64.\r\nShaoul, C., & Westbury, C.\r\n(2008).\r\nHiDEx: the high dimen-\r\nsional explorer. Edmonton, AB. (Published: Downloaded from\r\nhttp://www.psych.ualberta.ca/ ̃westburylab/downloads.html)\r\nShaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2011). Formulaic sequences: Do they exist and do\r\nthey matter? Methodological and Analytic Frontiers in Lexical Research\r\n(Part II). Special Issue of The Mental Lexicon, 6 (1), 171-196.\r\nShrout, P., & Fleiss, J. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater\r\nreliability. Psychological bulletin, 86 (2), 420.\r\nSibley, D. E., Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Large-Scale\r\nmodeling of wordform learning and representation. Cognitive Science,\r\n32 (4), 741–754.\r\nSiyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Heuven, W. van. (2011). Seeing a\r\nPhrase “Time and Again” Matters: The Role of Phrasal Frequency in the\r\nProcessing of Multiword Sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology:\r\nLearning Memory and Cognition, 37 (3), 776–784.\r\nSmith, N., & Levy, R. (2011). Cloze but no cigar: The complex relationship\r\nbetween cloze, corpus, and subjective probabilities in language process-\r\ning. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the cognitive science\r\nconference.\r\nSpeelman, C. (2005). Beyond the learning curve : skill acquisition and the\r\nconstruction of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\r\nSquire, L., & Kandel, E. (2000). Memory: From mind to molecules. New\r\nYork, NY, USA: Holt.\r\nStanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific founda-\r\ntions and new frontiers. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press.\r\nStrobl, C., Boulesteix, A., Kneib, T., Augustin, T., & Zeileis, A. (2008). Con-\r\nditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics,\r\n9 (1), 307.\r\nStrobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive parti-\r\ntioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and\r\nregression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods,\r\n14 (4), 323–348.\r\nTaft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect.\r\nMemory & Cognition, 7 (4), 263–272.\r\nTaylor, W. (1953). ” cloze procedure”: a new tool for measuring readability.\r\nJournalism quarterly.\r\nTenenbaum, J., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T., & Goodman, N. (2011). How to grow\r\na mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. science, 331 (6022), 1279.\r\nThompson, G. L., & Desrochers, A. (2009). Corroborating biased indicators:\r\nGlobal and local agreement among objective and subjective estimates of\r\nprinted word frequency. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (2), 452–471.\r\nToglia, M. P. (2009). Withstanding the test of time: The 1978 semantic word\r\nnorms. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (2), 531–533.\r\nTomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language : a usage-based theory of\r\nlanguage acquisition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.\r\nTremblay, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-\r\nword sequences: A behavioral and erp study of the effects of structure,\r\nfrequency, and probability on immediate free recall. Perspectives on\r\nformulaic language: Acquisition and communication, 151–173.\r\nTremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Process-\r\ning advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and\r\nsentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61 (2), 569–613.\r\nTremblay, A., & Tucker, B. V. (2011). The effects of N-gram probabilistic\r\nmeasures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The\r\nMental Lexicon, 6 (2), 302–324.\r\nTroyer, A. (2000). Normative data for clustering and switching on verbal\r\nfluency tasks. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,\r\n22, 370–378.\r\nTulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there?. American Psy-\r\nchologist, 40 (4), 385.\r\nUllman, M. T. (2001). The Declarative-Procedural model of lexicon and\r\ngrammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30 (1), 37–69.\r\nUllman, M. T., Miranda, R., & Travers, M. (2008). Sex differences in the\r\nneurocognition of language. In J. B. Becker, K. J. Berkley, & N. Gearyet\r\n(Eds.), Sex on the brain: From genes to behavior (p. 291-309). NY, NY,\r\nUSA: Oxford University Press.\r\nUnsworth, N., Spillers, G., & Brewer, G. (2010). Variation in verbal fluency: A\r\nlatent variable analysis of clustering, switching, and overall performance.\r\nThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64 (3), 447–466.\r\nVan Berkum, J. (2008). Understanding sentences in context. Current Direc-\r\ntions in Psychological Science, 17 (6), 376.\r\nVitu, F., & McConkie, G. W. (2000). Regressive saccades and word perception\r\nin adult reading. Reading as a perceptual process, 301–326.\r\nWestbury, C.\r\n(2007).\r\nACTUATE: Assessing Cases, The Uni-\r\nversity of Alberta Testing Environment.\r\n(Downloaded from\r\nhttp://www.psych.ualberta.ca/ ̃westburylab/)\r\nWillems, R., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between\r\nlanguage, gesture, and action: A review. Brain and Language, 101 (3),\r\n278–289.\r\nWood, S. (2006). Generalized additive models: an introduction with r (Vol. 66).\r\nNew York, NY, USA: CRC Press.\r\nWray, A. (1998). Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction.\r\nLanguage & Communication, 18 (1), 47–67.\r\nYap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic\r\nwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (4), 502–529.\r\nZwaan, R. (2008). Experiential traces and mental simulations in language\r\ncomprehension. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, 165–180.\r\n"
relation_type: []
relation_uri: []
reportno: ~
rev_number: 8
series: ~
source: ~
status_changed: 2013-05-04 22:47:49
subjects:
  - psy-ling
succeeds: ~
suggestions: ~
sword_depositor: ~
sword_slug: ~
thesistype: PhD thesis
title: The Processing of Lexical Sequences
type: thesis
userid: 19351
volume: ~
<script src="//archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/archive-bar.js"></script>