Order:
Disambiguations
Mary Hare [7]Mary L. Hare [1]
  1.  41
    Activating event knowledge.Mary Hare, Michael Jones, Caroline Thomson, Sarah Kelly & Ken McRae - 2009 - Cognition 111 (2):151-167.
  2.  24
    Learning and morphological change.Mary Hare & Jeffrey L. Elman - 1995 - Cognition 56 (1):61-98.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  3.  37
    The Wind Chilled the Spectators, but the Wine Just Chilled: Sense, Structure, and Sentence Comprehension.Mary Hare, Jeffrey L. Elman, Tracy Tabaczynski & Ken McRae - 2009 - Cognitive Science 33 (4):610-628.
    Anticipation plays a role in language comprehension. In this article, we explore the extent to which verb sense influences expectations about upcoming structure. We focus on change of state verbs like shatter, which have different senses that are expressed in either transitive or intransitive structures, depending on the sense that is used. In two experiments we influence the interpretation of verb sense by manipulating the thematic fit of the grammatical subject as cause or affected entity for the verb, and test (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  4. Structural priming: Purely syntactic.Mary L. Hare & Adele E. Goldberg - 1999 - In Martin Hahn & S. C. Stoness (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5.  36
    Online expectations for verbal arguments conditional on event knowledge.Klinton Bicknell, Jeffrey L. Elman, Mary Hare, Ken McRae & Marta Kutas - 2008 - In B. C. Love, K. McRae & V. M. Sloutsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6.  30
    A Connectionist Model of Phonological Representation in Speech Perception.M. Gareth Gaskell, Mary Hare & William D. Marslen-Wilson - 1995 - Cognitive Science 19 (4):407-439.
    A number of recent studies have examined the effects of phonological variation on the perception of speech. These studies show that both the lexical representations of words and the mechanisms of lexical access are organized so that natural, systematic variation is tolerated by the perceptual system, while a general intolerance of random deviation is maintained. Lexical abstraction distinguishes between phonetic features that form the invariant core of a word and those that are susceptible to variation. Phonological inference relies on the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  7.  14
    Meaning through syntax is insufficient to explain comprehension of sentences with reduced relative clauses: Comment on McKoon and Ratcliff (2003).Ken McRae, Mary Hare & Michael K. Tanenhaus - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (4):1022-1031.
  8.  12
    Postscript: Rejoinder to McKoon and Ratcliff (2005).Ken McRae, Mary Hare & Michael K. Tanenhaus - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (4):1031-1031.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark