ArticleGlossa (London)2017
Looking forwards and backwards: The real-time processing of Strong and Weak Crossover.
Article in Glossa (London), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dependency-Distance Effects Are Not Evidence Against Grammatical Theories With Empty Categories: When Psycholinguistic Data Are Not Diagnostic.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Real-time resolution of VP ellipsis ambiguity and processing depth.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Competing Biases in Real-Time Sentence Processing.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Memory Retrieval in Online Sentence Parsing: Empirical Evidence, Computational Modelling, and Simulations.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- Online revision process in clause-boundary garden-path sentences.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Predictive structure building in language comprehension: a large sample study on incremental licensing and parallelism.Cognitive processing · 2023Article
- Parsers and Grammars: A Tutorial Overview from the Linguistics Building.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Not All Phrases Are Equally Attractive: Experimental Evidence for Selective Agreement Attraction Effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Backward Dependencies andFrontiers in psychology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated the processing of pronouns in Strong and Weak Crossover constructions as a means of probing the extent to which the incremental parser can use syntactic information to guide antecedent retrieval. In Experiment 1 we show that the parser accesses a displaced wh-phrase as an antecedent for a pronoun when no grammatical constraints prohibit binding, but the parser ignores the same wh-phrase when it stands in a Strong Crossover relation to the pronoun. These results are consistent with two possibilities. First, the parser could apply Principle C at antecedent retrieval to exclude the wh-phrase on the basis of the c-command relation between its gap and the pronoun. Alternatively, retrieval might ignore any phrases that do not occupy an Argument position. Experiment 2 distinguished between these two possibilities by testing antecedent retrieval under Weak Crossover. In Weak Crossover binding of the pronoun is ruled out by the argument condition, but not Principle C. The results of Experiment 2 indicate that antecedent retrieval accesses matching wh-phrases in Weak Crossover configurations. On the basis of these findings we conclude that the parser can make rapid use of Principle C and c-command information to constrain retrieval. We discuss how our results support a view of antecedent retrieval that integrates inferences made over unseen syntactic structure into constraints on backward-looking processes like memory retrieval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.