Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) processing (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: processing


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines173 - : ABSTRACT: In this article we approach the cognitive processing of specialized written discourse in three areas of technical-professional education: maritime, industrial, commerce . We search into the influence of some text variables in reading specialized comprehension by a group of 234 students attending last year of secondary professional high schools, in Valparaíso, Chile. More specifically, we explore some relationships between the process of discourse comprehension and a group of written texts with specialized contents, hierarchically organized according to specific text structures and to dimensions of communicative linguistic features co-occurring systematically in the texts, identified upon of what we called Dimension Informational Focus (Parodi 2005a). To accomplish this, we designed and administered six comprehension texts to the group of students previously mentioned. Results show that there is enough empirical evidence to claim that some linguistic structures that identify

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines176 - : conocimiento. Estos resultados permiten concluir que "These LSA similarity indices predicted the students' reasoning slightly better than did hand-coded processing indices of the same think aloud data" (Wolfe & Goldman, 2003: 29 ). La predicción, por supuesto, radica en la interpretación que los investigadores hacen de los valores arrojados por el LSA.

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines229 - : Rumelhart, D., Hinton, G. & McClelland, J. (1986). A general framework for parallel distributed processing. En D. Rumelhart & J. McClelland & PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition . Volume 1: Foundations (pp. 45-76). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. [ [70]Links ]

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : Nowadays, reading is conceived as a complex cognitive activity which involves processes at different levels, from recognition of graphemes to the integration of global ideas from the text into the reader's knowledge. Regarding this conception, Adams (1980) identifies three levels of processing that intervene in reading: word recognition, syntactic processing and semantic processing . The two first are known as micro processes, whereas the last is a macro process and is related to text comprehension. The existing models differ in explaining how these processes relate with each other; essentially they differ in acknowledging or not the need to complete one of the processes in order to pass the information on to the next one. According to González (1993) these differences have given rise to three types of models: bottom-up processing (Just & Carpenter, 1987; Roelofs, 1997) top-down processing (Smith, 1971; Johnson, 1975) and the interactive model, which is more widely accepted nowadays. The

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines334 - : Like in Schmitt et al. (2004), the main goal of the AT was to test whether and how Spanish-speaking comprehension of ser and estar differs in three different conditions: a lexical-semantic condition named Polysemic Free, a syntactic condition named De Complement and a discursive-pragmatic condition named Context Only. This study goes one step forward by adjusting the results for a number of factors such as attention and yes-bias, in a unified regression framework. Hence we were able to obtain estimates of the difficulty associated to processing each type of information: lexical-semantic, syntactic, and discursive-pragmatic .

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : What evidence have we obtained concerning lexical functions? We presented a sufficient number of collocations annotated with lexical functions to the computer that learned characteristic features of each function. It was demonstrated that the computer was able to assign lexical functions to unseen collocations with a significant average accuracy of 0.759. Is it satisfactory? We can compare our result with computer performance on another task of natural language processing: word sense disambiguation, i .e., identifying the intended meanings of words in context. Today, automated disambiguating systems reach the accuracy of about 0.700 and this is considered a substantial achievement. As an example of such works see (Zhong & Tou Ng, 2010). Therefore, our result is weighty enough to be a trustworthy evidence for the linguistic statement under discussion.

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines347 - : "(…) idioms are not encoded as separate entries in the mental lexicon. Rather, their meaning is associated with particular configurations of words and becomes available-in lexical processing terms, is accessed-whenever sufficient input has rendered the configuration recognizable" (Cacciari & Tabossi, 1988: 678 ).

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines347 - : "The graded salience hypothesis then assumes that, at the initial access phase, literal and non literal utterances should not vary processing-wise; they should avail the salient meaning(s) initially, regardless of contextually information or literality. Only when salient meaning are contextually incompatible are additional processes or a strong context required. The distinction, then, that best predicts processing differences is not literal/figurative divide, but the salient -nonsalient continuum" (Giora, 2002: 6 ).

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines371 - : Dubois and Vial (2000) investigated the interaction between verbal and visual modes of presenting the foreign language for Russian vocabulary learning by French speaking learners. They predicted that their students would show better recall when textual information was presented with visual and auditory information as with semantic and phonetic links between the elements. Their theoretical rationale for this claim was that “when textual, visual, and auditory materials are integrated in this way, the learner may be forced to engage in additional processing that leads to better memorisation” (Dubois & Vial, 2000: 159 ). Among the results obtained, Dubois and Vial (2000) explain that auditory information presented together with visual elements fostered more learning than textual information presented with the same image, thus confirming the findings of other authors like Mayer and Moreno (1998). Dubois and Vial (2000: 163) explain the consistency of the results saying that “a presentation where

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines371 - : These presentations included not only a comparison between on-screen text plus narration and a presentation based on the redundancy principle (Mayer) with narration and the double use of the visual channel for processing both the text and the image, but also a comparison between two types of images: still and moving .

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines400 - : Note that certain aspects of the systems herein described are subject to theoretical debates. For instance, several authors (Aissen & Rivas, 1975; Fernández Soriano, 1999) have advanced conflicting views on the nature of the spurious se (i.e., the systematic use of se lo instead of the non-occurring cluster *le lo). The present model accounts for such a cluster at the morphotactic level (Figure 8), with additional restrictions coming from the semantic stratum (Figure 9). This solution is consistent with the framework advanced by García (1975, 2009). According to this author, the impossibility of processing the cluster *le lo follows from the same principles underlying the acceptable use of other clitics, be it in isolation or in clusters . In her own words,

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines406 - : Pulido, D. (2009). Vocabulary processing and acquisition through reading: Evidence for the rich getting richer . In Z. Han, N.J. Anderson & D. Freeman (Eds.), Second language reading research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp. 65-82). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. [ [61]Links ]

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines434 - : This work aims at showing that, due to their mainly procedural meaning, discourse particles are linguistic devices used as instructions to ostensively guide a hearer during information processing. By means of a set of eye-tracking reading experiments, we have analyzed how counter-argumentative connectives and focus operators contribute to constraining inferential computations during reading comprehension. Results, based on these experiments, provide empirical evidence that allows supporting three theoretical arguments concerning discourse particles: a) discourse particles are not irrelevant devices in communication (cfr. § 2.1); b) discourse particles have a mainly procedural meaning (cfr. § 2.2); and c) the processing patterns to which discourse particles give rise in utterances depend on the interaction of two factors: the properties of discourse particles themselves and the properties of the utterances in which they occur (cfr . § 2.3).

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : Luzondo, A. & Jiménez, R. (2014). FrameNet and FunGramKB: A comparison of two computational resources for semantic knowledge representation. In B. Nolan & C. Periñán (Eds.), Language processing and grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp . 197-232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [136]Links ]

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines463 - : Processing causality and counter-causality: Interactions between syntactic structure and world knowledge during the comprehension of semantic relations

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines463 - : This paper is part of a comprehensive study on the psycholinguistic processing of causality and counter-causality in discourse. The particular aim is to analyze the articulation between the semantic and syntactic information during this process. That is, how the syntactic complexity is related to the processing complexity when readers have to understand pieces of discourse that express particular semantic relationships: causal and counter-causal . One of the main objectives will be to study how the performance pattern changes when the possibility / impossibility to involve world knowledge conditions the process. We present a psycholinguistic experiment, which aims at analyzing the comprehension of causal and counter-causal relations, expressed by sentences with different syntactic structure -coordinates and subordinates- and in two conditions regarding the type of information: every-day items -the speaker may involve their world knowledge- and technical items -this intervention of previous

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines463 - : world knowledge is not possible-. Results show that this factor determines the processing pattern and significantly modifies the articulation between syntactic complexity and processing complexity: only in the absence of prior knowledge, syntactic complexity is reflected directly in processing complexity .

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines464 - : Oral performance in a second language (L2) can be measured in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency, thus offering an overview of L2 learning. Focusing on the cognitive development of L2 learning, particularly from the point of view of Processing Theory and the Speech Production Model, limited attentional resources hinder simultaneous attention to the variables studied, namely: Performance components of complexity, accuracy and fluency in semi spontaneous oral monologues at different levels of English proficiency (A2, B2 and C1 ). Complexity was measured in terms of lexical range (as D score, best fit for lexical range) and grammatical complexity (as the average length of words in each clause, and number of clauses in each Analysis of Speech (AS) unit). Accuracy was measured as the proportion of AS units free from errors and percentage of error-free clauses. Fluency was measured by calculating the phonation-time ratio and the mean length of pauses. Regarding trends in L2 language

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines469 - : It can be observed and confirmed through the learner’s comments that the problem he found had to do with the lexical item ‘suit’ (traje). He signals this by hesitating before uttering the approximated term, thus compensating for a specific lexical referent that he needed to continue communicating his message. It seems that this CS was particularly useful for this activity in view of its specific context, as it is considered informative enough to allow for reference to various properties of the target item (^[108]Ghout-Khenoune, 2012). In addition, it is also a quick and efficient way of tackling a specific lexical problem since it requires “less processing effort and less time to be uttered” (^[109]Lujan-Ortega, 1997:45 ). This mechanism is also seen as most effective since it reduces the probability of miscommunication (^[110]Rossiter, 2005), an important aspect to consider in view of such outcome-oriented type of task.

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines469 - : ^2Cognitive processing: information organisation, amount of computation, clarity and sufficiency of information given, and information type (^[186]Skehan, 1998: 99 ).

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines499 - : Orsmond, P. & Merry, S. (2009). Processing tutor feedback: A consideration of qualitative differences in learning outcomes for high and non-high achieving students . Ponencia presentada en el Fostering Communities of Learners, 13th EARLI conference, August 25-29, Ámsterdam, Alemania. [ [153]Links ]

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines510 - : “Relational nouns can be connected to their arguments/values by a variety of verbs and prepositions, which constitute a semantic complex that is also used, with exactly the same structure but with a different meaning, to operate on non-relational nouns […]. These terms (like “of”, “have” and “with”) are highly polysemous, and any language processing system must encompass mechanisms for disambiguating their intended meaning in any particular utterance” (^[155]De Bruin & Scha, 1988: 26-27 ).

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines545 - : Chertkow, H., Bub, D., Murtha, S., Beauregard, M., Gold, D., Hosein, C., et al. & Evans, A. (1996). Variability of brain regions in word processing: Evidence for dissociation of processing levels . Ponencia presentada en the Third Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, Estados Unidos. [ [137]Links ]

24
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines579 - : The analysis of the rhetorical organization of lecture introductions can provide models of their structure that students non-native to English can be familiarized with, resulting in their creation of “mental maps” which can assist the listeners in processing the lecture content (^[26]Lee, 2009: 43 ). Four genre analyses of lecture introductions have been produced to date - ^[27]Thompson (1994), ^[28]Lee (2009), ^[29]Shamsudin and Ebrahimi (2012) and ^[30]Yaakob (2013). The former three used relatively small corpora, consisting of 18, 10 and 6 lectures respectively, and the only study employing a more sizeable corpus was that of ^[31]Yaakob (2013), who analyzed 89 lecture introductions from the BASE corpus . Just one of these studies - that of ^[32]Shamsudin and Ebrahimi (2012), used a discipline-specific corpus (engineering), but, as noted above, consisting of just 6 lectures.

25
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines579 - : The information that students are given in lecture introductions concerns the lecture topic and its structure, scope, aims and general context. By providing students with both a structural and contextual framework for the remainder of the lecture, lecturers can “aid listeners in processing the information” (^[75]Lee, 2009: 44 ).

26
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines59 - : Learning style refers to "an individual's natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills and persist regardless of teaching methods and content areas" ([39]Reid, 1995:viii ). Many of the multiple elements that comprise an individual learning style are bipolar, representing a continuum from one expreme to another. However, no value judgment is made about where a learner falls on the continuum. Since each style has similar intelligence ranges, a student cannot be stigmatized for having one set of learning strengths. The concept of learning styles thus offers a non-discriminatory approach for understanding individual differences among diverse students ([40]Kinsella, 1995). The learning style dimensions that will be the focus of this research are: 1) visual/auditory/hands-on; 2) extroverted/introverted; 3) intuitive/concrete-sequential; 4) closure-oriented/open; and 5) global/analyitic.

27
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines77 - : The aim of the present anticle is to consider the main contributions coming from the different theoretical currents to enrich the concept of metacognition, trying to explain why many authors consider it a fuzzy concept, with no clear-cut delimitation. Four theories are considered; two of them correspond to developmental psychology: one deals with the ideas small children have about mind and cognition ("theory of the mind"), the other considers metacognition as a natural development of the adolescent mind. The other two theories can be adscribed to the perspective of information processing: one pertains to the research on memory known as "Feeling of knowing" , the other focuses on metacognition relating to reading comprehension and tries to establish a clear distinction between metacognitive knowledge and regulation .

28
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines77 - : "Some of their functions are selecting the best strategy, monitoring or keping track of the efficiency and effectiveness of ongoing memory processing, cheking to see whether the task has been completed, and updating current strategies to meet changes in task demands" (1982:12 ).

Evaluando al candidato processing:


2) lexical: 9 (*)
3) complexity: 9 (*)
4) discourse: 9 (*)
5) syntactic: 9 (*)
6) learning: 9
8) semantic: 8 (*)
9) reading: 8 (*)
10) lecture: 7
11) comprehension: 7 (*)
14) particles: 6

processing
Lengua: eng
Frec: 505
Docs: 148
Nombre propio: 3 / 505 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 7
Frec. en corpus ref. en eng: 127
Puntaje: 7.737 = (7 + (1+6.35755200461808) / (1+8.98299357469431)));
Rechazado: muy común;

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
processing
: Adams, M. (1980). Failures to comprehend and levels of processing in reading. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading compression (pp. 11-32). New Jersey: LEA.
: Almor, A. & Sloman, S. A. (2000). Reasoning versus text processing in the Wason selection task -a non-deontic perspective on perspective effects. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1060-1069.
: Altmann, G. & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191-238.
: Amit, E., Algom, D. & Trope, Y. (2009). Distance-dependent processing of pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 400-415.
: Baker, C. (2014). FrameNet: A knowledge base for natural language processing. In Proceedings of Frame Semantics in NLP: A workshop in honor of Chuck Fillmore (1929-2014) (pp. 1-5). Baltimore, Maryland.
: Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. En Pierre Coirier & Jerry Andriessen (Eds.), Studies in writing. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
: Bar-Kochva, I. & Nevo, E. (2018). The relations of early phonological awareness, rapid‐naming and speed of processing with the development of spelling and reading: a longitudinal examination. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 97-122. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12242
: Battig, W. (1979). The flexibility of human memory. En L. S. Cermak & F. M. I. Craik.(Eds.), Levels of Processing in Human Memory.(pp. 23-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Beller, S. (2010). Deontic reasoning reviewed: psychological questions, empirical findings, and current theories. Cognitive Processing, 11, 123-132.
: Ben-Zur, H. (1998). Dimensions and patterns in decision-making models and the controlled/automatic distinction in human information processing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 171-189. doi: 10.1080/713752271
: Berger, A., Della Pietra S. & Della Pietra, S. (1996). A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing, Computational Linguistics, 22(1), 39-71.
: Betancort, M., Carreiras, M. & Sturt, P. (2011). The processing of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(10), 1915-1929.
: Blachman, B. (1994). What we have learned from longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading, and some unanswered questions: A response to Torgesen, Wagner and Rashotte. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 77, 787-791.
: Bolshakov, I.A. & Miranda-Jiménez S. (2004). A small system storing Spanish collocations. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Lecture notes in computer science: Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (pp. 248–252). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
: Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21, 543-566.
: Briner, S.W., Virtue, S. & Kurby, C.A. (2011). Processing causality in narrative events: Temporal order matters. Discourse Processes, 49(1), 61-77.
: Burani, C. & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 217-227.
: Burman, D., Bitan, T. & Booth, J. (2008). Sex differences in neural processing of language among children. Neuropsychologia, 46(5), 1349-1362.
: Bybee, J. (2014). Analytic and holistic processing in the development of constructions. Language in Interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark, 12.
: Caillies, A. & Butcher, K. (2007). Processing of idiomatic expression: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Methaphor and Symbol, 22, 79-108.
: Cain, K. & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429-441.
: Calvo, M. & Meseguer, E. (2002). Eye movements and processing stages in reading: Relative contribution of visual, lexical and contextual factors. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 66-77.
: Caplan, D., Hildebrandt, N. & Waters, G. S. (1994). Interaction of verb selectional restrictions, noun animacy and syntactic form in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(4), 549-585.
: Carlisle, J. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. En L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189-209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Carlisle, J. (2007). Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. En R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse. & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 78-103). Nueva York, US: Guilford Press.
: Carlisle, J. F. & Fleming, J. (2003) Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239-253.
: Carpuat, M. & Wu, D. (2007). Improving statistical machine translation using word sense disambiguation. Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learnin (pp. 61-72).
: Carreiras, M., Igoa, J. M. & Meseguer, E. (1997). On the use of minimal attachment strategy in spanish: An eyetracking study. En Poster presentado en la 10th annual CUNY sentence processing conference. Los Angeles, CA, USA.
: Cerella, J. (1985). Information processing rates in the elderly. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 67-83.
: Chen, H.-J. (2009). Evaluating two web-based grammar checkers - Microsoft ESL Assistant and NTNU Statistical Grammar Checker. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing,
: Ciaramita, M. & Altun, Y. (2006). Broad-coverage sense disambiguation and information extraction with a supersense sequence tagger. Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 594-602). Association for Computational Linguistics.
: Clifton, C. Jr., Traxler, M. J., Williams, R., Mohammed, M., Morris, R. K. & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317-334.
: Colé, P., Beauvillain, C. & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words. A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1-13.
: Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003). Processing and linguistics markers in young children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1029-1037.
: Cook, A. & Guéraud, S. (2005). What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39(2&3), 265-278.
: Cornejo, C., Simonetti, F., Ibáñez, A., Aldunate, N., Ceric, F., López, V. & Núñez, R. (2009). Gestures and metaphorical comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence of the influence of gestures on metaphorical processing. Brain and Cognition, 70, 42-52.
: Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
: Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. & Corley, M. (1996). Parsing in different languages. En M. Carreiras, J. García- Albea & N. Sebastián (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
: Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-second-language proficiency in bilingual children. En E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Duarte, L. R., Marquié, L., Marquié, J. C., Terrier, P. & Ousset, P. J. (2009). Analyzing feature distinctiveness in the processing of living and non-living concepts in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Cognition, 71, 108-117.
: Duong, A., Whitehead, V., Hanratty, K. & Chertkow, H. (2006). The nature of lexico-semantic processing deficits in mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia, 44(10), 1928-1935.
: Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research. Construction, administration, and processing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Ehrlich, M. F. (1996). Metacognitive monitoring in the processing of anaphoric devices in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. En C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation (pp. 221-249). Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Einstein, G., McDaniel, M., Owen, P. & Coté, N. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 566-581.
: Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
: Ferry, A. L., Hespos, S. J. & Gentner, D. (2015). Prelinguistic relational concepts: Investigating analogical processing in infants. Child Development, 86(5), 1386-1405.
: Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. En A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing (pp. 55-81). Ámsterdam: North Holland.
: Frauenfelder, U. & Schreuder, R. (1992). Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. En G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 165-183). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
: Fraurud, K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 7, 395-433.
: Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. En M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII (pp. 561-587). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Förster, J., Liberman, N. & Kuschel, S. (2008). The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 579-599.
: Gaidhane, M. S. C., Gondhale, M. D. P. & Talole, M. P. (2015). A comparative study of stemming algorithms for natural language processing. International Journal of Engineering, Education and Technology (ARDIJEET), 3(2), 1-6.
: Gamallo, P. & González, I. (2012). DepPattern: A multilingual dependency parser. Sesión de demos. Ponencia presentada en el 10 ^t ^h International Conference on Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language (PROPOR’ 2012), Coimbra, Portugal.
: Gargham, A. (1999) Reference and anaphora. En S. Garrod y M. Pickering (Eds.) Language Processing. Hove, Psychology Press. 335-362.
: Garrod, S. & Sanford, A. J. (1983). Topic dependent effects in language processing. En G. Flores D’Arcais & R. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 271-296). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
: Gelbukh, A. & Sidorov, G. (2001). Zipf and Heaps Laws’ coefficients depend on language. Proceedings of the second CICLing Conference, Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics. Ciudad de México, México.
: Gennari, S. & Poeppel, D. (2003). Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity. Cognition, 89, 27-41.
: Gernsbacher, M. (1997) Coherence cues mapping during comprehension. En J. Costermans y M. Fayol (Eds.) Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text. Mahwah, LEA. 3-23.
: Gibbs, R. W. (1993). Why idioms are not dead metaphors. En C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 57-77). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
: Gliozzo, A., Magnini, B. & Strapparava, C. (2004). Unsupervised domain relevance estimation for word sense disambiguation. Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
: Gottardo, A., Stanovich, K. E. & Siegel, L. (1996). The relationships between phonological sensitivity, syntactic processing, and verbal working memory in the reading performance of third–grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 563-582.
: Grodner, D., Gibson, E. & Watson, D. (2003). The influence of contextual on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong- interaction in sentences comprehension. Cognition, 95, 275-296.
: Hagoort, P., Brown, C. & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
: Hanks, P. & Pustejovsky, J. (2005). A pattern Dictionary for Natural Language Processing. Revue Française de linguistique appliquée, 10(2), 63-82.
: Hanks, P. (2009). The linguistic double helix: norms and exploitations. En D. Hlavácková, A. Horák , K. Osolsobě & P. Rychlý (Eds.), After half a century of Slavonic natural language processing (Festschrift for Karel Pala) (pp. 63-80). Brno: Masaryk University .
: Harish, B. S., Guru, D. S. & Manjunath, S. (2010). Representation and classification of text documents: A brief review. IJCA Special Issue on Recent Trends in Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, 2,110-119.
: Hasting, A. S., Kotz, S. A. & Friederici, A. D. (2007). Setting the stage for automatic syntax processing: The mismatch negativity as an indicator of syntactic priming. Journal of Cognitive neuroscience, 19(3), 386-400.
: Herrera, L. & Defior, S. (2005). An approach to the phonological processing in prereading Spanish children: Phonological awareness, verbal short-term memory and naming. Psyche, 14(2), 81-95.
: Holmes, K. J. & Wolff, P. (2010). Simulation from schematics: Dorsal stream processing and the perception of implied motion. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, Oregon, USA.
: Hongkeun, K. (2012). A dual-subsystem model of the brain's default network: Self-referential processing, memory retrieval processes, and autobiographical memory retrieval. NeuroImage, 61(4), 966-977.
: Huber, W. & Gleber, H. (1982). Linguistic and nonlinguistic processing of narratives in aphasia. Brain and Language, 16, 1-18.
: Huettig, F., Rommers, J. & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta psychologica, 137(2), 151-171.
: Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F. & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. En J. Hyönä, R. Radach& H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313-334). Ámsterdam: Elsevier.
: Ibáñez, A., Manes, F., Escobar, J., Trujillo, N., Andreucci, P. & Hurtado, E. (2010). Gesture influences the processing of figurative language in non-native speakers: ERP evidence. Neuroscience Letters, 471(1), 48-52.
: Ide, N., Erjavec, T. & Tufis, D. (2001). Automatic sense tagging using parallel corpora. In Proceedings of the Sixth Natural Language Processing Pacific Rim Symposium -NLPRS (pp. 83-90).
: Jackson, P. & Moulinier, I. (2003). Natural language processing for online applications. Text retrieval, extraction and categorization. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
: Jansen, B. & Spink, A. (2000). Real life, real users and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information Processing and Management, 36(2), 207-227.
: Jin, P., Sun, X., Wu,Y. & Yu, S. (2007). Word clustering for collocation-based word sense disambiguation. In P. Jin, X. Sun,Y.Wu & S.Yu (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (pp. 267–274). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
: Jurafsky, D. & Martin, J. (2000). An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech processing, Prentice Hall.
: Jurafsky, D. & Martin, J. (en preparación). Dependency parsing. Speech and Language Processing (3a ed.) [en línea]. Disponible en: [140]https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/14.pdf
: Jurafsky, D. & Martin, J.H. (2000). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
: Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 647-670. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00072.x
: Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. & Haywood, S. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-156.
: Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 256-266.
: Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205-225.
: Kintch, W. (1994) The psychology of discourse processing. En M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.) Psycholinguistics. San Diego, Academic Press. 721-739.
: Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
: Kintsch, W. (1993) Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences. Discourse Processes, 16, 193-202.
: Kounios, J. & Holcomb, P. (1994). Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual–coding theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 804–823.
: Kronmüller, E., Noveck, I., Rivera, N., Jaume, F. & Barr, D. (2017). The positive side of a negative reference: The delay between linguistic processing and common ground. Royal Society Open Science, 4(2), 160827.
: Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117-129.
: Laberge, D. & Samuels, S. J. (1994). Toward a theory of automatic information processing of reading. En H. Singer & B. Rudell (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 689-718). Newark, Delaware: IRA & Erlbaum.
: Larsen, S. (1983). Text Processing and Knowledge Updating in Memory for Radio News. Discourse Processes 6, 21-38.
: Lee, J. (2004). On the generalizability, limits, and potential future directions of processing instruction research. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 293-309). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T. & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569-587.
: Leonard, L., Ellis Weismer, S., Miller, C., Francis, D., Tombling, J. & Kail, R. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 50, 408-428. Doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/029).
: Levinson, S. C. & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in psychology, 6.
: Levon, E. (2010). Organizing and processing your data: The nuts and bolts of quantitative analysis. En L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 68-92). Londres: Continuum .
: Lobina, D., Demestre, J. & García-Albea, J. E. (en prensa). Disentangling perceptual and psycholinguistic factors in syntactic processing: Tone monitoring via ERPs. Behavior Research Methods.
: Lockhart, R. S. (2002). Levels of processing, transfer-appropriate processing, and the concept of robust encoding. Memory, 10(5-6), 397-403.
: Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1456-1470.
: Loureda, Ó., Cruz, A. Rudka, M., Nadal, L., Recio, I. & Borreguero Zuloaga, M. (2015). Focus particles in information processing: An experimental study on pragmatic scales with Spanish incluso. En A. M. De Cesare & C. Andorno (Eds.), Linguistik Online, 71(2), 129-152.
: Luzondo, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2015). Argument structure constructions in a Natural Language Processing environment. Language Sciences, 48(2015), 70-89.
: Lázaro, M., García, C. & Burani, C. (2015). How orthographic transparency modulates morphological processing in young readers with and without reading disability. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12213
: MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. & Seidenberg, M. (1994b). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. En C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 123-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Mani, I. & MacMillan, R. (1996). Identifying unknown proper names in Newswire Text. En B. Boguraev & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Corpus processing for lexical acquisition (pp. 41-59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Manning, C. & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language Processing. Boston: The MIT Press.
: Marslen-Wilson, W. & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical accessduring word recognition in continuos speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63.
: Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T. & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100, 115-126.
: Mason, L., Pluchino, P. & Tornatora, M. (2015). Eye-movement modeling of integrative Reading of an illustrated text: Effects on processing and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 172-187.
: Mason, L., Tornatora, M. & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95-109.
: Mausam, Schmitz, M., Bart, R., Soderland, S. & Etzioni, O. (2012). Open language learning for Information Extraction. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL ‘12), 523-534.
: Maynard, D. & Ananiadou, S. (2000). TRUCKS: A model for automatic multi-word term recognition. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 8(1), 101-125.
: McCallum, R., Bell, S., Wood, M., Below, J., Choate, S. & McCane, S. (2006). What is the role of working memory in reading relative to the big three processing variables (orthography, phonology, and rapid naming)? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(3), 243-259.
: McClellan, J. L y D. Rumelhart. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
: McCrudden, M. & Schraw, G. (2006). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational psychology review, 19(2), 113-139.
: McCrudden, M. T. & Corkill, A. J. (2010). Verbal ability and the processing of scientifictext with seductive detail sentences. Reading Psycholog y, 31(3), 282-300.
: McCrudden, M., Magliano, J. & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporany Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229-241.
: McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990’s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25-42.
: McRae, K. & Matzuki, K. (2013). Constraint-based models of sentence processing. En R. van Gompel (Ed.) Sentence Processing (pp. 51-67). Londres: Psychology Press.
: Meilán, J. J., Martínez-Sánchez, F., Carro, J., Sánchez, J. A. & Pérez, E. (2012). Acoustic markers associated with impairment in language processing in Alzheimer’s disease. The Spanish journal of psychology, 15(2), 487-494.
: Mel’čuk, I. (1996). Lexical functions: A tool for the description of lexical relations in a lexicon. In L. Wanner (Ed.), Lexical functions in lexicography and natural language processing (pp. 37–102). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Johm Benjamins.
: Meyer, B. (1984). Text dimension and cognitive processing. In H. Mandl, N. Stein & Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and compression of text (pp. 3-52). New Jersey: LEA.
: Mihalcea, R. & Tarau, P. (2004). TextRank: Bringing order into texts. Ponencia presentada en Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,Barcelona, España.
: Miikkulainen, M., & Dyer, M. (1991). Natural language processing with modular PDP networks and distributed lexicon. Cognitive Science, 15, 345-399.
: Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
: Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. En M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII (pp. 601-618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Mitchell, D. C. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. En M. Carreiras & C. Clifton (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 15-32). Nueva York: Psychology Press.
: Moayedfar, S., Purmohammad, S., Shafa, N., Shafa, N. & Ghasisin, L. (2019). Analysis of naming processing stages in patients with mild Alzheimer. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult [en línea].
: Morton, J. (1979). Facilitation in word recognition: Experiments causing change in the logogen model. En P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad & H. Bouma (Eds.), Processing of visible language (pp. 259-268). Nueva York: Plenum.
: Murawaki, Y. (2013). Global model for hierarchical multi-label text classification. International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, 46-54.
: Nadal, L., Recio, I., Rudka, M. & Loureda, Ó. (en prensa). Processing additivity in Spanish: ‘Incluso’ vs ‘además’. En A. De Cesare & C. Andorno (Eds.), Focus on Additivity. Multiperspective and Multifaceted Views. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(1), 85-101.
: Noordman, L. & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. En J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships (pp.75- 93). Mahwah NJ: Earlbaum.
: Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H. & Kaakinen, J. K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 433.
: O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1200-1210.
: Padró, L., Collado, M., Reese, S., Lloberes, M. & Castellón, I. (2010). FreeLing 2.1: Five years of open-source language processing tools. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), 931-936.
: Partee, B. (1977). John is easy to please. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 281-312). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
: Patwardhan, S., Banerjee, S. & Pedersen, T. (2003). Using measures of semantic relatedness for word sense disambiguation. International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (pp. 241-257). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
: Pennacchiotti, M. & Pantel, P. (2009). Entity extraction via ensemble semantics. En Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Singapore: ACL.
: Peraita, H., Díaz, C. & Anllo Vento, L. (2008). Processing of semantic relations in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(1), 33-46.
: Periñán, C. & Arcas, F. (2014). The implementation of the CLS constructor in ARTEMIS. In B. Nolan & C. Periñán (Eds.), Language processing and grammars. The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp. 165-196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Pessoa, L., Kastner, S. & Ungerleider, L. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of attention: From modulation of sensory processing to top-down control. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(10), 3990-3998.
: Pexman, P. M., Siakaluk, P. D. & Yap, M. J. (2013). Introduction to the research topic meaning in mind: Semantic richness effects in language processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 723.
: Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Piolat, A., Roussey, J.Y. & Gombert, A. (1999). Developmental cues of argumentative writing en J.E.B. En J.E.B. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumewntative text processing (pp. 117-135). Ámsterdam: Universitiy Press.
: Processing Challenge, 2007, contiene 978 textos clínicos de informes de radiología y considera 45 categorías de códigos médicos. La [86]Tabla 5 presenta las características del conjunto de datos pre-procesados.
: Pulvemüller, F., Cooper-Pye, E., Dine, C., Hauk, O., Nestor, P. J. & Patterson, K. (2010). The word processing deficit in Semantic Dementia: All categories are equal, but some categories are more equal than others. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2027-2041.
: Pérez, D., Alfonseca, E., Rodriguez, P., Gliozzo, A., Strapparava, C, &Magnini, B. (2005). About the effects of combining Latent Semantic Analysis with natural language processing techniques for free-text assessment. Revista Signos, 38(59), 325-343.
: Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61-82.
: Radvansky, G. & Dijkstra, K. (2007). Aging and situation model processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1027-1042.
: Raskin, V. (1987). Linguistics and natural language processing. In S. Nirenburg (Ed.), Machine translation: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 42-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Ratcliff, R. & McKoon, G. (2008). Passive parallel automatic minimalist processing. En C. Engel & W. Singer (Eds.), Better than conscious? Decision making, the human mind, and implications for institutions (pp. 176-189). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing. 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
: Redl, T., Eerland, A. & Sanders, T. J. (2018). The processing of the Dutch masculine generic zijn ‘his’ across stereotype contexts: An eye-tracking study. PloS one, 13(10), 1-22.
: Rocchio, J. (1971). Relevance feedback in information retrieval. En G. Salton (Ed.), The SMART Retrieval System–Experiments in automatic document processing (pp. 313-323). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
: Rosé, C., Roque, A., Bhembe, D. & VanLehn, K. (2003). A hybrid text classification approach for analysis of student essays. Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL workshop Building Educational Applications Using Natural Language Processing, Edmonton, Canada.
: Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Studies in the microstructure of cognition (2 Vols). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
: Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). PDP Models and general issues in cognitive science. En D.E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Paralllel distributed processing (Vol.1). Cambridge. MA.: M.I.T. Press, A Bradford Book.
: Rumelhart, D.E. & McClelland (Eds.) (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Rupp, A., Ferne, T. & Choi, H.（2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: a cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23, 441-474.
: Sager, J. (1990). A practical course in terminology processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Salton, G. & Buckley, C. (1988). Term-weighting approaches in automatic retrieval. Information Processing y Management, 24(5), 513-523.
: Samuels, J., & Laberge, D. (1985). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. En H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 548-579). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
: Sanders, T. J. M. & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37-60.
: Sanford, A. J. & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382-386.
: Schacter, D. L. (1987). Effects of etaborative processing on implicit and explicit memory for new associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 432-444.
: Schank, R. (1975). Conceptual Information Processing. New York: Elsevier.
: Schank, R. (1975). The role of memory in language processing. En C. Cofer & R. Atkinson (Eds.), The nature of human memory. San Francisco: Freedman.
: Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. Ponencia presentada en el International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, United Kingdom.
: Schmidt, G., DeBuse, C. & Seger, C. (2005). Right hemisphere metaphor processing. Characterizing the lateralization of semantic processes. Brain and Language, 100, 127-141.
: Schmitt, N. & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic Sequences in Action: An Introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp.1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Schneider, K. (2005) Techniques for improving the performance of naive Bayes for text classification. En International conference on computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. Ciudad de México, México.
: Schraw, G. (1998). Processing and recall differences among seductive details. Journal of Educational Psycholog y, 90, 3-12.
: Schüler, A., Arndt, J. & Scheiter, K. (2015). Processing multimedia material: Does integration of text and pictures result in a single or two interconnected mental representations? Learning and Instruction, 35, 62-72.
: Seely, M. R. & Long, D. (1994). The Use of Generalized Knowledge Structures in Processing Television News Items. En H.van Oostendorp & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Naturalistic Text Comprehension (pp 149-164). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
: Sharp, R. (2005). A unified treatment of Spanish se. In A. Branco, T. McEnery & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora Processing (pp. 113-136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Siddiqui, T. & Tiwary, U. S. (2008). Natural language processing and information retrieval. Nueva Dehli: Oxford University Press.
: Singer, M., & Ritchot, K. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733-743.
: Siyanova, A. & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of Collocation : A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 3, 429-458.
: Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language teaching research, 1(3), 185-211.
: Sowa, J. (1984). Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
: Spilich, G., Vesonder, G., Chiesi, H. & Voss, J. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
: Spivey-Knowlton, M. & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Referential context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. En C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Spivey-Knowlton, M., Trueswell, J. & Tanenhaus, M. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Psychology: Special Issue: Reading and Language Processing, 47(2), 276-309.
: Spärck Jones, K. (2007). Automatic summarising: The state of the art. Information Processing & Management, 43(6), 1449-1481.
: Stein, N. & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. En R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-120). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Swinney, D. & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(5), 523-534.
: Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271-294.
: Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A. & Tidhar, D. (2006). Automatic classification of citation function. Ponencia presentada en the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Sydney, Australia.
: The basic elements of an intelligent tutor model include tutor, leaner, domain, speech processing, and error detection (^[41]Swartz & Yazdani, 2012). These components perform activities which together comprise the L2 teaching-learning process.
: The internal architecture of Atenea is composed of a statistical module, called ERB, and several Natural Language Processing (NLP) modules based on the wraetlic tools (Alfonseca, 2003).
: Tian, Y. & Breheny, R. E. (2018). Pragmatics and negative sentence processing. Oxford University Press.
: Tolone, E. (2012). Conversión de las tablas del Léxico-Gramática del francés en el léxico LGLex. Ponencia presentada en el 2nd Argentinian Workshop on Natural Language Processing (WNLP’11), Córdoba, Argentina.
: Tong, L., Changjie, T. & Jie, Z. (2001). Web document filtering technique based on natural language understanding, Int'lJ. Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 14(2), 279-291.
: Torgesen, J., Wagner, R. & Rashotte, C. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286.
: Toth, P. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 62(2), 319-385.
: Traxler, M., Hoversten, J. & Trevor, A. (2018). Sentence processing and interpretation in monolinguals and bilinguals: Classical and contemporary approaches. En E. Fernández & H. Smith (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 325-349). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
: Tremblay, A. (2008). Is second language lexical access prosodically constrained? Processing of word stress by French Canadian second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(4), 553-584.
: Trofimovich, P., Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (2007). A dynamic look at L2 phonological learning: Seeking processing explanations for implicational phenomena. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(3), 407-448.
: Trueswell, J. & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. En C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
: Tyler L. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1997). Disorders of combination: Processing of complex words. Brain and Language, 60, 40-48.
: Tyler, L. K. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(6), 683-692.
: Vickrey, D., Biewald, L., Teyssier, M. & Koller, D. (2005). Word-sense disambiguation for machine translation. Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 771-778). Association for Computational Linguistics.
: Vitevitch, M. & Luce, P. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing inspoken word perciep-tion. Psychological Science, 9, 325-329.
: Wenger, M. & Payne, D. (1996). Comprehension and retention of nonlinear text: Considerations of working memory and material-appropriate processing. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 93-130.
: Wurm, L. H. (2000). Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2), 255-271.
: Zhou F., Zhang, F. & Yang, B. (2010). Graph-based text representation model and its realization. Ponencia presentada en el International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, Beijing, China.
: Zwaan, R. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1196-1207.
: van Dijk, T. (1985). Cognitive situational models in discourse processing. The expression of ethnic situation models in prejudice stories. En J. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 61-79). New York: Springer.
: van Dijk, T. (1987). Episodic models in discourse processing. En R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press.
: van Dijk, T. (1999). Context models in discourse processing. En H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 123-148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.