Incrementality and Prediction in Human Sentence Processing.
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.
Altmann
Gerry T M
GT
Department of Psychology, University of York.
Mirković
Jelena
J
Cognition. 2004 Sep;93(2):B79-87
15147941
J Cogn Neurosci. 1997 Jan;9(1):27-38
23968178
Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77
17662975
Cognition. 2005 May;96(1):B23-32
15833303
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):687-96
15099136
Vision Res. 2003 Jul;43(16):1735-51
12818344
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):558-65
12412897
Psychol Bull. 2007 Mar;133(2):273-93
17338600
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Aug;8(8):1117-21
16007080
Cognition. 2002 Dec;86(2):B33-42
12435537
Mem Cognit. 2005 Oct;33(7):1174-84
16532852
Br J Psychol. 1964 May;55:165-80
14168481
Cogn Sci. 2014 Aug;38(6):1024-77
25087578
Mem Cognit. 2000 Dec;28(8):1310-20
11219959
Learn Mem. 1994 May-Jun;1(1):1-33
10467583
Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703
7984711
Cognition. 2009 Apr;111(1):55-71
19193366
Cognition. 2008 Aug;108(2):533-42
18423431
Cogn Sci. 2006 May 6;30(3):481-529
21702823
J Psycholinguist Res. 1995 Nov;24(6):409-36
8531168
Cognition. 2000 Sep 14;76(3):269-95
10913578
Neural Comput. 1997 Nov 15;9(8):1735-80
9377276
J Exp Psychol. 1963 Oct;66:319-27
14053250
Cogn Sci. 2009 May;33(3):449-96
21585477
Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):247-64
10585516
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Apr;4(4):310-22
12671647
Cognition. 2002 Sep;85(2):B43-50
12127703
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997 Jun;126(2):99-130
9163932
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Feb;7(2):84-91
12584027
Psychol Res. 2001 Nov;65(4):235-41
11789427
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2003 Jun 15;361(1807):1149-75
12816605
J Mem Lang. 2008;58(4):161-187
19724662
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):443-67
15910130
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1991 Dec;120(4):339-57
1837294
Psychol Bull. 1998 Mar;123(2):162-85
9522683
Psychol Rev. 2004 Jul;111(3):662-720
15250780
Science. 1999 Jan 1;283(5398):77-80
9872745
Cogn Sci. 2007 Jul 8;31(4):613-43
21635310
Psychol Sci. 2003 Nov;14(6):648-52
14629701
Cognition. 1980 Jun;8(2):209-25
7389289
Cognition. 1993 Jul;48(1):71-99
8403835
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Jun 1;5(6):244-252
11390295
Cognition. 2003 Nov;90(1):51-89
14597270
Neural Comput. 2001 Oct;13(10):2221-37
11570997
Behav Brain Sci. 1997 Mar;20(1):1-19; discussion 19-55
10096994