title: Incrementality and Prediction in Human Sentence Processing.
abstract: We identify a number of principles with respect to prediction that, we argue, underpin adult language comprehension: (a) comprehension consists in realizing a mapping between the unfolding sentence and the event representation corresponding to the real-world event being described; (b) the realization of this mapping manifests as the ability to predict both how the language will unfold, and how the real-world event would unfold if it were being experienced directly; (c) concurrent linguistic and nonlinguistic inputs, and the prior internal states of the system, each drive the predictive process; (d) the representation of prior internal states across a representational substrate common to the linguistic and nonlinguistic domains enables the predictive process to operate over variable time frames and variable levels of representational abstraction. We review empirical data exemplifying the operation of these principles and discuss the relationship between prediction, event structure, thematic role assignment, and incrementality.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of York.
authors.forename: Gerry T M
authors.initials: GT
authors.lastname: Altmann
authors.forename: Jelena
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Mirković
references.citation: Cognition. 2004 Sep;93(2):B79-87
references.pmid: 15147941
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1997 Jan;9(1):27-38
references.pmid: 23968178
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77
references.pmid: 17662975
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 May;96(1):B23-32
references.pmid: 15833303
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):687-96
references.pmid: 15099136
references.citation: Vision Res. 2003 Jul;43(16):1735-51
references.pmid: 12818344
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):558-65
references.pmid: 12412897
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2007 Mar;133(2):273-93
references.pmid: 17338600
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2005 Aug;8(8):1117-21
references.pmid: 16007080
references.citation: Cognition. 2002 Dec;86(2):B33-42
references.pmid: 12435537
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2005 Oct;33(7):1174-84
references.pmid: 16532852
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 1964 May;55:165-80
references.pmid: 14168481
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2014 Aug;38(6):1024-77
references.pmid: 25087578
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2000 Dec;28(8):1310-20
references.pmid: 11219959
references.citation: Learn Mem. 1994 May-Jun;1(1):1-33
references.pmid: 10467583
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703
references.pmid: 7984711
references.citation: Cognition. 2009 Apr;111(1):55-71
references.pmid: 19193366
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Aug;108(2):533-42
references.pmid: 18423431
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2006 May 6;30(3):481-529
references.pmid: 21702823
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 1995 Nov;24(6):409-36
references.pmid: 8531168
references.citation: Cognition. 2000 Sep 14;76(3):269-95
references.pmid: 10913578
references.citation: Neural Comput. 1997 Nov 15;9(8):1735-80
references.pmid: 9377276
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1963 Oct;66:319-27
references.pmid: 14053250
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2009 May;33(3):449-96
references.pmid: 21585477
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):247-64
references.pmid: 10585516
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Apr;4(4):310-22
references.pmid: 12671647
references.citation: Cognition. 2002 Sep;85(2):B43-50
references.pmid: 12127703
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997 Jun;126(2):99-130
references.pmid: 9163932
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Feb;7(2):84-91
references.pmid: 12584027
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2001 Nov;65(4):235-41
references.pmid: 11789427
references.citation: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2003 Jun 15;361(1807):1149-75
references.pmid: 12816605
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2008;58(4):161-187
references.pmid: 19724662
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):443-67
references.pmid: 15910130
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1991 Dec;120(4):339-57
references.pmid: 1837294
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1998 Mar;123(2):162-85
references.pmid: 9522683
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jul;111(3):662-720
references.pmid: 15250780
references.citation: Science. 1999 Jan 1;283(5398):77-80
references.pmid: 9872745
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2007 Jul 8;31(4):613-43
references.pmid: 21635310
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2003 Nov;14(6):648-52
references.pmid: 14629701
references.citation: Cognition. 1980 Jun;8(2):209-25
references.pmid: 7389289
references.citation: Cognition. 1993 Jul;48(1):71-99
references.pmid: 8403835
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Jun 1;5(6):244-252
references.pmid: 11390295
references.citation: Cognition. 2003 Nov;90(1):51-89
references.pmid: 14597270
references.citation: Neural Comput. 2001 Oct;13(10):2221-37
references.pmid: 11570997
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 1997 Mar;20(1):1-19; discussion 19-55
references.pmid: 10096994