A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing

Language Learning

Volumn 59, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2009, Pages 126-161

  Christiansen, Morten H ^a   MacDonald, Maryellen C ^b  

^a Cornell University ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 73149105091     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00538.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Bach, E., Brown, C., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1986). Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 249 262.
2. Blaubergs, M. S., & Braine, M. D. S. (1974). Short-term memory limitations on decoding self-embedded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 745 748.
3. Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods, and aims. New York : Oxford University Press.
4. Boland, J. E. (1997). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423 484.
5. Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413 432.
6. Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774 806.
7. 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.
8. Botvinick, M., & Plaut, D.C. (2006). Short-term memory for serial order: A recurrent neural network model. Psychological Review, 113, 201 233.
9. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2, 113 124.
10. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
11. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
12. Christiansen, M. H. (1994). Infinite languages, finite minds: Connectionism, learning and linguistic structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
13. Christiansen, M. H., Allen, J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Learning to segment speech using multiple cues: A connectionist model. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 221 268.
14. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1994). Generalization and connectionist language learning. Mind and Language, 9, 273 287.
15. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157 205.
16. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2003). Constituency and recursion in language. In M. A. Arbib (Ed. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (2nd ed., pp. 267 271). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
17. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 489 558.
18. Christiansen, M. H., & Dale, R. (2001). Integrating distributional, prosodic and phonological information in a connectionist model of language acquisition. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds. Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 220 225). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Christiansen, M. H., Dale, R., & Reali, F. (in press). Connectionist explorations of multiple-cue integration in syntax acquisition. In S.P. Johnson (Ed. Neoconstructivism: The new science of cognitive development. New York : Oxford University Press.
20. Church, K. (1982). On memory limitations in natural language processing. Bloomington : Indiana University Linguistics Club.
21. Dabrowska, E. (1997). The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35, 735 766.
22. Dickinson, S. (1987). Recursion in development: Support for a biological model of language. Language and Speech, 30, 239 249.
23. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179 211.
24. Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representation, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7, 195 225.
25. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71 99.
26. Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2009). Processing grammatical and ungrammatical center embeddings in English and German: A computational model. Unpublished manuscript.
27. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. (in press). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
28. Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491 505.
29. Foss, D. J., & Cairns, H. S. (1970). Some effects of memory limitations upon sentence comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 541 547.
30. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1 76.
31. Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1996). The processing complexity of English center-embedded and self-embedded structures. In C. Schütze (Ed. Proceedings of the NELS 26 sentence processing workshop (pp. 45 71). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
32. Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 225 248.
33. Hadley, R. F. (1994). Systematicity in connectionist language learning. Mind and Language, 9, 247 272.
34. Hagoort, P. (in press). Reflections on the neurobiology of syntax. In D. Bickerton & E. Szathmáry (Eds. Biological foundations and origin of syntax. Strüngmann Forum Reports (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
35. Hagstrom, P., & Rhee, R. (1997). The Dependency Locality Theory in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 189 206.
36. Hakes, D. T., Evans, J. S., & Brannon, L. L (1976). Understanding sentences with relative clauses. Memory and Cognition, 4, 283 290.
37. Hakes, D. T., & Foss, D. J. (1970). Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of surface structure reconsidered. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 413 416.
38. Hamilton, H. W., & Deese, J. (1971). Comprehensibility and subject-verb relations in complex sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 163 170.
39. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve Science, 298, 1569 1579.
40. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
41. Hoover, M. L. (1992). Sentence processing strategies in Spanish and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 275 299.
42. Joshi, A. K. (1990). Processing crossed and nested dependencies: An automaton perspective on the psycholinguistic results. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 1 27.
43. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122 149.
44. Karlsson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple center embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 365 392.
45. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15 47.
46. Larkin, W., & Burns, D. (1977). Sentence comprehension and memory for embedded structure. Memory and Cognition, 5, 17 22.
47. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126 1177.
48. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375 419.
49. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: A comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters & Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35 54.
50. Marcus, G. F. (1998). Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 243 282.
51. Marcus, M. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
52. Marks, L. E. (1968). Scaling of grammaticalness of self-embedded English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 965 967.
53. Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 17, 748 762.
54. Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds. Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 419 492). New York : Wiley.
55. Miller, G. A., & Isard, S. (1964). Free recall of self-embedded English sentences. Information and Control, 7, 292 303.
56. Niv, Y., & Schoenbaum, G. (2008). Dialogues on prediction errors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 265 272.
57. Peterfalvi, J. M., & Locatelli, F (1971). L'acceptabilité des phrases [The acceptability of sentences L' Année Psychologique, 71, 417 427.
58. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 105 110.
59. Plaut, D. C. (1999). A connectionist approach to word reading and acquired dyslexia: Extension to sequential processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 543 568.
60. Powell, A., & Peters, R. G. (1973) Semantic clues in comprehension of novel sentences. Psychological Reports, 32, 1307 1310.
61. Reali, F., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2003). Phonological and distributional cues in syntax acquisition: Scaling up the connectionist approach to multiple-cue integration. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds. Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 970 975). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
62. Reich, P. (1969). The finiteness of natural language. Language, 45, 831 843.
63. Rohde, D. L. T. (2002). A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
64. Roth, F. P. (1984). Accelerating language learning in young children. Child Language, 11, 89 107.
65. Schlesinger, I. M. (1975). Why a sentence in which a sentence in which a sentence is embedded is embedded is difficult. Linguistics, 153, 53 66.
66. Servan-Schreiber, D., Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J.L. (1991). Graded state machines: The representation of temporal dependencies in simple recurrent networks. Machine Learning, 7, 161 193.
67. Shieber, S. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 333 - 343.
68. Sibley, D. E., Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Large-scale modeling of wordform learning and representation. Cognitive Science, 32, 741 754.
69. Stabler, E. P. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds. Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303 336). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
70. Stolz, W. S. (1967). A study of the ability to decode grammatically novel sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 867 873.
71. Uehara, K., & Bradley, D. (1996). The effect of -ga sequences on processing Japanese multiply center-embedded sentences. In 11th Pacific-Asia conference on language, information, and computation (pp. 187 196). Seoul : Kyung Hee University.
72. von Humboldt, W 1999). On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the metal development of the human species. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press Original work published 1936)
73. Wang, M. D. (1970). The role of syntactic complexity as a determiner of comprehensibility. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 398 404.
74. Wells, J., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250 271.