Becoming syntactic

Psychological Review

Volumn 113, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 234-272

  Chang, Franklin ^a,c   Dell, Gary S ^b   Bock, Kathryn ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^c NTT Communication Science Laboratories   (Japan)

Author keywords

Connectionist models; Sentence production; Syntax acquisition

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CHILD; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; INFANT; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LINGUISTICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; INFANT; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 33744529877     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234     Document Type: Article

References (197)

1. Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2001). What pre-school children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders. Cognitive Development, 16, 1-14.
2. Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339-356.
3. Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 33, 952-965.
4. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.
5. Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning in linguistic and nonlinguistic domains. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 359-380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533-581.
7. Baker, M. C. (2005). Mapping the terrain of language learning. Language Learning and Development, 1(1), 93-129.
8. Bates, E., & Goodman, J. C. (2001). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition. In M. Tomasello & E. Bates (Eds.), Language development: The essential readings. Essential readings in developmental psychology (pp. 1.34-162). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
9. Bavin, E. L., & Growcott, C. (2000). Infants of 24-30 months understand verb frames. In M. Perkins & S. Howard (Eds.), New directions in language development and disorders (pp. 169-177). New York: Kluwer Academic.
10. Behne, T., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Unwilling versus unable: Infants' understanding of intentional action. Developmental Psychology, 41, 328-337.
11. Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., & Garrett, M. F. (Eds.). (1996). Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1-47.
13. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355-387.
14. Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163-186.
15. Bock, K. (1990, October). Creating and remembering form in talk. Paper presented at the Cognitive Lunch Group meeting, Department of Psychology, Duke University, Durham, NC.
16. Bock, K. (1995). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Speech, language, and communication (Vol. 11, pp. 181-216). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
17. Bock, K. (2002. March). Persistent structural priming from, comprehension to production. Paper presented at the 16th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.
18. Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Chang, F., & Onishi, K. H. (2005). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19. Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177-192.
20. Bock, K., Irwin, D. E., Davidson, D. J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Minding the clock. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 653-685.
21. Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1-39.
22. Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150-171.
23. Botvinick, M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review, 111, 395-429.
24. Bowerman, M. (1976). Semantic factors in the acquisition of rules for word use and sentence construction. In D. Morehead & A. Morehead (Eds.), Normal and deficient child language (pp. 99-179). Baltimore: University Park Press.
25. Boyland, J. T., & Anderson, J. A. (1998). Evidence that syntactic priming is long-lasting. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Braine, M. D. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 41(1), 104.
27. Braine, M. D. (1992). What sort of innate structure is needed to "bootstrap" into syntax? Cognition, 45, 77-100.
28. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (1999). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 635-640.
29. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13-B25.
30. Branigan, H. P., Picketing, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., Stewart, A. J., et al. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 489-506.
31. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Stewart, A. J., & McLean, J. F. (2000). Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory &. Cognition, 28, 1297-1302.
32. Brooks, P. J., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 35, 29-44.
33. Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843-873.
34. Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(1), 1.77-208.
35. Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 315-330.
36. Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve- and 18-montholds copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8, F13-F20.
37. Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H., & Fisher, C. (2003). Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experiences. Cognition, 87, B69-B77.
38. Chang, F. (2002). Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science, 26, 609-651.
39. Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90, 29-49.
40. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 217-229.
41. Chang, F., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Towards a quantitative corpus-based evaluation measure for syntactic theories. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 418), Stresa, Italy.
42. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
43. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58.
44. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157-205.
45. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 82-88.
46. Clark, E. V., & Carpenter, K. L. (1989). The notion of source in language acquisition. Language, 65, 1-30.
47. Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. language, 55, 767-811.
48. Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 235-253.
49. Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 214-230.
50. Cohen, N. J., & Eichenbaum, H. (1993). Memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2001). Sequential learning in non-human primates. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 539-546.
52. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
53. Culicover, P. W., & Nowak, A. (2003). Dynamical grammar: Minimalism, acquisition, and change. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
54. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activalion theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
55. Dell, G. S., Burger, L. K., & Svec, W. R. (1997). Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 104, 123-147.
56. Dell, G. S., Chang, F., & Griffin, Z. M. (1999). Connectionist models of language production: Lexical access and grammatical encoding. Cognitive Science, 23, 517-542.
57. Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801-838.
58. Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization (Vol. 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
59. Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
60. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-rules and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
61. Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 3, 531-559.
62. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
63. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71-99.
64. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development (Vol. 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495.
66. Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 724-755.
67. Ferreira, V. S. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying "that" is not saying "that"' at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 379-398.
68. Ferreira, V. S. (2005). Maintaining syntactic diversity: Syntactic persistence, the inverse-preference effect, and syntactic affirmative action. Manuscript submitted for publication.
69. Ferreira, V. S., Bock, J. K., Wilson, M. P., & Cohen, N. J. (2005). Anterograde amnesics learn the structures of sentences they cannot renumber. Manuscript submitted for publication.
70. Fisher, C. (1996). Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of analogy in children's interpretations of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 41-81.
71. Fisher, C. (2002a). The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello. Cognition, 82, 259-278.
72. Fisher, C. (2002b). Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of abstract structure in 2.5-year-olds' interpretations of novel verbs. Developmental Science, 5, 55-64.
73. Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 331-392.
74. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3-71.
75. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and language, 37, 58-93.
76. Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of speech production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 133-177). London: Academic Press.
77. Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 1(1), 3-55.
78. Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K. W., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development, 1(1), 23-64.
79. Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information & Control, 10, 447-474.
80. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
81. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391, 279-281.
82. Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2002). Learning to divide the labor between syntax and semantics: A connectionist account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Brain and Cognition, 48, 376-381.
83. Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2003). Learning to divide the labor: An account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Cognitive Science, 27, 1-40.
84. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274-279.
85. Griffin, Z. M., & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 537-555.
86. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
87. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203-257.
88. Gupta, P., & Cohen, N. J. (2002). Theoretical and computational analysis of skill learning, repetition priming, and procedural memory. Psychological Review, 109, 401-448.
89. Gupta, P., & Dell, G. S. (1999). The emergence of language from serial order and procedural memory. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 447-481). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
90. Gupta, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases. Brain and Language, 59, 267-333.
91. Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
92. Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
93. Harris, A. C., & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
94. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(2), 143-184.
95. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 113-157.
96. Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H. J., & Huiskamp, P. (1999). Priming word order in sentence production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52(A), 129-147.
97. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veitkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409-414.
98. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Westenberg, C. (2000). Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75, B27-B39.
99. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002, November 22). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
100. Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (1996). The origins of grammar: Evidence from early language comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
101. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
102. Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 182-195.
103. Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92, 101-144.
104. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
105. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures (Vol. 18), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
106. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
107. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
108. Jordan, M. (1986). Serial order: A parallel distributed processing approach (ICS Tech. Rep. No. 8604). La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, Department of Cognitive Science.
109. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and language, 49, 133-156.
110. Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 37-55.
111. Karnath, H.-O. (2001). New insights into the functions of the superior temporal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 568-576.
112. Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110, 316-339.
113. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2002). Performance grammar: A declarative definition. In A. Nijholt, M. Theune, & H. Hondorp (Eds.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands, 2001 (pp. 148-162). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
114. Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201-258.
115. Kidd, E., Bavin, E. L., & Rhodes, B. (2001). Two-year-olds' knowledge of verbs and argument structures. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M.-J. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal. & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on child language acquisition: Proceedings of the 8th conference of the International Association for the Study of Child language (pp. 1368-1382). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
116. Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M. W., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95, 95-127.
117. Konopka, A., & Bock, K. (2005, March). Helping syntax out: How much do words do? Paper presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.
118. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
119. Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1-33.
120. Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). "What" and "where" in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217-265.
121. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
122. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
123. Levelt, W. J., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 78-106.
124. Levelt, W. J. M., Praamstra, P., Meyer, A. S., Helenius, P., & Salmelin, R. (1998). An MEG study of picture naming. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-science, 10, 553-567.
125. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.
126. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
127. Lidz, J., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition, 87, 151-178.
128. Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333-367.
129. Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187-219.
130. Loebell, H., & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41(5), 791-824.
131. MacDonald, M. C. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 177-196). Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.
132. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35-54.
133. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703.
134. MacKay, D. G. (1987). Asymmetries in the relationship between speech perception and production. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 301-333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
135. MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
136. MacWhinney, B. (Ed.). (1999). The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
137. Marcus, G. F. (1998). Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 243-282.
138. Marcus, G. F. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
139. Mazuka, R. (1998). The development of language processing strategies: A cross-linguistic study between Japanese and English, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
140. McClelland, J. L., & Kawamoto, A. H. (1986). Mechanisms of sentence processing: Assigning roles to constituents in sentences. In J. L. Mc-Clelland, D. E. Rumelhart & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol 2. Psychological and biological models (pp. 272-325). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
141. Meijer, P. J. A., & Fox Tree, J. A. (2003). Building syntactic structures in speaking: A bilingual exploration. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 184-195.
142. Miikkulainen, R. (1996). Subsymbolic case-role analysis of sentences with embedded clauses. Cognitive Science, 20, 47-73.
143. Miikkulainen, R., & Dyer, M. G. (1991). Natural language processing with modular PDP networks and distributed lexicon. Cognitive Science, 15, 343-399.
144. Miikkulainen, R., & Mayberry, M. R., III. (1999). Disambiguation and grammar as emergent soft constraints. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 153-176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
145. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
146. Mintz, T. H. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90(1), 91-117.
147. Mintz, T. H., Newport, E. L., & Bever, T. G. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393-424.
148. Mishkin, M., & Ungerldder, L. G. (1982). Contribution of striatc inputs to the visualspatial functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys. Behavioral Brain Research, 6, 57-77.
149. Naigles, L. R. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357-374.
150. Naigles, L. R. (2002). Form is easy, meaning is hard: Resolving a paradox in early child language. Cognition, 86, 157-199.
151. Naigles, L. R. (2003). Paradox lost? No, paradox found! Reply to Tomasello and Akhtar (2003). Cognition, 88, 325-329.
152. Onishi, K. H., Chambers, K. E., & Fisher, C. (2002). Learning phonotactic constraints from brief auditory experience. Cognition, 83, B13-B23.
153. Palmer, F. R. (1994). Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
154. Petersson, K. M., Forkstam, C., & Ingvar, M. (2004). Artificial syntactic violations activate Broca's region. Cognitive Science, 28, 383.
155. Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633-651.
156. Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (1997). Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 123-138.
157. Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
158. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
159. Plaut, D. C., & Kello, C. T. (1999). The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: A distributed connectionist approach. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 381-415). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
160. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
161. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
162. Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and language, 38, 265-282.
163. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460-499.
164. Redington, M., Chater, N., & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science, 22, 425-469.
165. Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., et al. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111, 205-235.
166. Rohde, D. L. T. (1999). LENS: The light, efficient network simulator (Report No. CMU-CS-99-164). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science.
167. Rohde, D. L. T. (2002). A connectionisl model of sentence comprehension and production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
168. Rohde, D. L. T., & Plant, D. C. (1999). Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: How important is starting small? Cognition, 72, 67-109.
169. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323, 533-536.
170. Sachs, J. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437-442.
171. Saffran, E. M., & Martin, N. (1997). Effects of structural priming on sentence production in aphasies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 877-882.
172. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996, December 13). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928.
173. Safire, W. (2003, May 11). On language: Jonesing. New York Times, p. 24.
174. Savage, C., Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 6, 557-567.
175. Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89, 179-205.
176. Seger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 163-196.
177. Seidenberg, M. S. (1997, March 14). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275, 1599-1603.
178. Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2001). Constraint satisfaction in language acquisition and processing. In M. H. Christiansen & N. Chater (Eds.), Connectionist psycholinguistics (pp. 281-318). Westport, CT: Ablex.
179. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
180. Shastri, L., & Ajjanagadde, V. (1993). From simple associations to systematic reasoning: A connectionist representation of rules, variables and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 417-494.
181. Spiers, E. (2003). Zeta-jonesing: A new word. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2003, from http://www.gawker.com/03/04/005480.html
182. St. John, M. F., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 217-257.
183. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward, a cognitive semantics: Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
184. Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 28, 127-152.
185. Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
186. Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209-253.
187. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of Language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
188. Tomasello, M., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2002). A tale of two theories: Response to Fisher. Cognition, 83, 207-214.
189. Tomasello, M., & Akhtar, N. (2003). What paradox? A response to Naigles (2002). Cognition, 88, 317-323.
190. Ullman, M. T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717-726.
191. Van Valin, R. D. J., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
192. Vigliocco, G., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2002). The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 442-472.
193. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105-143.
194. Whitehurst, G. J., Ironsmith, M., & Goldfein, M. (1974). Selective imitation of the passive construction through modeling. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 17, 288-302.
195. Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39, 483-508.
196. Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272-1288.
197. Wilson, D. R., & Martinez, T. R. (2003). The general inefficiency of batch training for gradient descent learning. Neural Networks, 16, 1429-1451.