Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension

Syntax and Semantics

Volumn 37, Issue , 2011, Pages 147-180

  Phillips, Colin ^a   Wagers, Matthew W ^b   Lau, Ellen F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862142245     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/9781780523750_006     Document Type: Chapter

References (142)

1. Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax, 12, 93-134.
2. Arregui, A., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided VPs with flawed antecedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 232-246.
3. Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement, and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65-85.
4. Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748-769.
5. Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (2000). Case and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 37-52.
6. Baker, M. C. (1991). On some subject-object non-asymmetries in Mohawk. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 537-576.
7. Barker, C. (1999). Individuation and quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 683-691.
8. Barss, A. (2003). Anaphora: A reference guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
9. Bock, J. K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99-127.
10. Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45-93.
11. Boeckx, C. (2007). Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 151-167.
12. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç , S., Philipp, M., . . . Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 117, 133-152.
13. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in sentence comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55-73.
14. Bourdages, J. S. (1992). Parsing complex NPs in French. In: H. Goodluck & M. S. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing (pp. 61-87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
15. Braver, T. S., Paxton, J. L., Locke, H. S., & Barch, D. M. (2009). Flexible neural mechanisms of cognitive control within human prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 7351-7356.
16. Bruening, B. (2005). The Algonquian inverse is syntactic: Binding in Passamaquoddy. Manuscript, University of Delaware.
17. Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Marten, L. (2005). The dynamics of language. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 35. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19. Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225-295.
20. Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the 'logicality' of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 535-590.
21. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
22. Chow, W.-Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2011). Immediate structural constraints on antecedent retrieval in pronoun resolution. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.
23. Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 37-60.
24. Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In: M. K. Tanenhaus & G. N. Carlson (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273-317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. Clifton, C., Jr., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11, 11-39.
26. Clifton, C., Kennison, S., & Albrecht, J. (1997). Reading the words her, him, and his: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276-292.
27. Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Huang, C.-T. J. (Eds.). (2000). Long-distance reflexives. New York, NY: Academic Press.
28. Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 446-486.
29. Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-185.
30. Cowart, W., & Cairns, H. S. (1987). Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: Some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints. Memory and Cognition, 15, 318-331.
31. Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In: D. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psycholinguistic, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Crain, S., & McKee, C. (1985). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In: S. Berman, J-W. Choe & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual North Eastern Linguistics Society (pp. 94-110). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
33. Davis, H. (2009). Cross-linguistic variation in anaphoric dependencies: Evidence from the Pacific Northwest. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 1-43.
34. Deane, P. (1991). Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 1-63.
35. Dillon, B. (2011). Structured access in sentence comprehension. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
36. Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (submitted). Contrasting interference profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and University of Maryland, College Park.
37. Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the backdoor. In: S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 145-165). Berlin: de Gruyter.
38. Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531-559.
39. Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 333-365.
40. Elbourne, P. (2008). The interpretation of pronouns. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 119-150.
41. Erteshik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
42. Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 337-362.
43. Fauconnier, G. (1975). Polarity and the scale principle. Proceedings of the 11th meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. pp. 188-199.
44. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The 'good enough' approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71-83.
45. Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 309-317.
46. Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101, 173-216.
47. Franck, J., Soare, G., Frauenfelder, U., & Rizzi, L. (2010). Object interference in subject-verb agreement: The role of intermediate traces of movement. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 166-182.
48. Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Attraction in sentence production: The role of syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371-404.
49. Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In: D. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129-189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
51. Freedman, S. E., & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101-131.
52. Fults, S., & Phillips, C. (2004, March). The source of syntactic illusions. Poster presented at the 17th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. College Park, MD.
53. Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51-60.
54. 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.
55. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.
56. Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69-101.
57. Harris, C. L., & Bates, E. A. (2002). Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 237-269.
58. Harrison, A., Hartsuiker, R., Branigan, H., & Pickering, M. (2004, March). Agreement processing in a complex number system. Poster presented at the 17th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. College Park, MD.
59. Häussler, J., & Bader, M. (submitted). Agreement checking and number attraction in sentence comprehension: Insights from German relative clauses.
60. Heim, I. (1992). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. In: U. Sauerland & O. Percus (Eds.), The interpretive tract (pp. 205-246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
61. Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 547-593.
62. Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59-73.
63. Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366-415.
64. Huang, Y. (2004). Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface. In: L. R. Horn & G. S. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 288-314). Oxford: Blackwell.
65. Israel, M. (2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In: L. R. Horn & G. S. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 701-723). Oxford: Blackwell.
66. Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee,D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M.G., &Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 15, 1-32.
67. Kadmon, N., & Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 353-422.
68. Kazanina, N. (2005). The acquisition and processing of backwards anaphora. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
69. Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384-409.
70. Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2001). Coreference in child Russian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints. In: A. Do, L. Dominguez & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 413-424). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
71. Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2010). Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 371-400.
72. 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.
73. Kennison, S. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 335-352.
74. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205-225.
75. Kluender, R. (2005). Are subject islands subject to a processing account?. In: V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A. J. Rodriguez & B. Schmeiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 475-499). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
76. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573-633.
77. Knuth, D. E. (1965). On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8, 607-639.
78. Koster, J., & Reuland, E. (1992). Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 487-520.
80. Kuperberg, G. K. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
81. 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.
82. Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Negative polarity items as inherent scope relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
83. Ladusaw, W. A. (1992). Expressing negation. In: C. Barker & D. Dowty (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 237-259.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle.
84. Lau, E. F., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74-88.
85. Lee, M.-W. (2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentence processing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 51-73.
86. Lee, M.-W., & Williams, J. (2008). The role of grammatical constraints in intra-sentential pronoun resolution. Manuscript, London Metropolitan University and University of Cambridge.
87. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375-419.
88. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447-454.
89. Lukyanenko, C., Conroy, A., & Lidz, J. (submitted). Infants' adherence to Principle C: Evidence from 30-month olds.
90. McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In: B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (46, pp. 155-200). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
91. McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67-91.
92. McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 432-460.
93. McKinnon, R., & Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 495-823.
94. Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
95. Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151-165.
96. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5-19.
97. O'Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. New York, NY: Routledge.
98. Omaki, A., Lau, E. F., Davidson White, I., & Phillips, C. (submitted). Hyper-active gap filling: Pre-verbal object gap creation in English filler-gap dependency processing.
99. Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (In press). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
100. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, J. K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427-456.
101. Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
102. Phillips, C. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34.
103. Phillips, C. (2004). Linguistics and linking problems. In: M. Rice & S. Warren (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies (pp. 241-287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
104. Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795-823.
105. Phillips, C., & Lewis, S. (to appear). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. In C. Chesi (Ed.), Directions in derivations. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
106. Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In: M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 739-756). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
107. Pickering, M., Barton, J. S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints, and processing complexity. In: C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 199-224). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
108. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 261-303.
109. Pritchett, B. (1991). Subjacency in a principle-based parser. In: R. C. Berwick (Ed.), Principle-based parsing: Computation and psycholinguistics (pp. 301-345). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
110. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman.
111. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
112. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
113. Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 261-321.
114. Ricker, T. J., AuBuchon, A. M., & Cowan, N. (2010). Working memory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews in Cognitive Science, 1, 573-585.
115. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
116. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193-241.
117. Solomon, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49.
118. Sprouse, J., Wagers, M, & Phillips, C. (to appear). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language.
119. Steedman, M. (2000). The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
120. Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10, 80-126.
121. Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 227-245.
122. Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
123. Stroud, C., & Phillips, C. (2011). Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language [epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.001.
124. Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542-562.
125. Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355-370.
126. Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
127. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454-475.
128. Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 157-166.
129. van Gompel, R. P. G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 128-139.
130. van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181-1197.
131. Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685-712.
132. Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production. Is proximity concord syntactic or linear?. Cognition, 68, 13-29.
133. Wagers, M. (2008). The structure of memory meets memory for structure in linguistic cognition. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
134. Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., Stroud, C., & Phillips, C. (2008, March). Agreement and the subject of confusion. Talk presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Chapel Hill, NC.
135. Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206-237.
136. Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2009). Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 395-433.
137. Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., Fults, S. W., & Phillips, C. (2009, March). The role of event comparison in comparative illusions. Poster presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Davis, CA.
138. Xiang, M., Dillon, B., and Phillips, C. (2006, March). Testing the strength of the spurious licensing effect for negative polarity items. Talk at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York, NY.
139. Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language, 108, 40-55.
140. Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. (2008). Involvement from cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103-115.
141. Yoshida, M. (2006). Constraints and mechanisms in long-distance dependency formation. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
142. Zukowski, A., McKeown, R., & Larsen, J. (2008). A tough test of the locality requirement for reflexives. In: H. Chan, H. Jacob & E. Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 586-597). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.