Some arguments and nonarguments for reductionist accounts of syntactic phenomena

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 1-2, 2013, Pages 156-187

  Phillips, Colin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Overgeneration; Parsing; Syntax

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SYNTACTIC PHENOMENA;

EID: 84873101572     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.530960     Document Type: Article

References (142)

1. Alcocer, P., França, A., Maia, M., & Phillips, C. 2010, March. Structure sensitive and insensitive retrieval of subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. Paper presected at the 23rd annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New York, NY.
2. Allwood, J. 1982. "The complex NP constraint in Swedish". In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, Edited by: Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. 15-32. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell.
3. Anderson, C. 2004. The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity (PhD dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
4. Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M. and Phillips, C. 2009. Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax, 12: 93-134.
5. Arnon, I., Snider, N., Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., & Sag, I. A. in press. Cross-linguistic variation in a processing account: The case of multiple wh-questions. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
6. Badecker, W., & Lewis, R. 2008, March. Agreement and sentence formulation: The role of working memory (retrievals) in language production. Paper presented at the 21st annual CUNY SentenceProcessing Conference, Chapel Hill, NC.
7. Badecker, W. and 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.
8. Bard, E., Robertson, D. and Sorace, A. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72: 32-68.
9. Barker, C. 1999. Individuation and quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 30: 683-691.
10. Berwick, R. and Weinberg, A. S. 1984. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Bloom, P. 1990. Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21: 491-504.
12. Bloom, P., Barss, A., Nicol, J. and Conway, L. 1994. Children's knowledge of binding and coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language, 70: 53-71.
13. Bock, J. K. and Miller, C. A. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23: 45-93.
14. Booth, T. L. and Thompson, R. A. 1973. Applying probability measures to abstract languages. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-22: 442-450.
15. Cann, R., Kempson, R. and Marten, L. 2005. The dynamics of language, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16. Cattell, R. 1976. Constraints on movement rules. Language, 52: 18-50.
17. Chien, Y.-C. and 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.
18. Chomsky, N. 1973. "Conditions on transformations". In A festschrift for Morris Halle, Edited by: Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
19. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
20. Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Christiansen, M. H. and MacDonald, M. C. 2009. A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1): 126-161.
22. Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, J. in press. Sluicing(:) between structure and inference In R. G. Bravo, L. Mikkelsen, & E. Potsdam, Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen (pp. 285-296). Santa Cruz, CA: LRC Publications.
23. Chung, S. and McCloskey, J. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry, 14: 704-713.
24. Clifton, C. Jr, Frazier, L. and Deevy, P. 1999. Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11: 11-39.
25. Clifton, C. Jr, Kennison, S. and 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.
26. Cohen, J. D., Perlstein, W. M., Braver, T. S., Nystrom, L. E., Noll, D. C., Jonides, J. and Smith, E. E. 1997. Temporal dynamics of brain activation during a working memory task. Nature, 386: 604-608.
27. Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J. and Phillips, C. 2009. Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40: 446-486.
28. Cowan, N. 2000. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24: 87-185.
29. Culicover, P., & Postal, P. 2001. Parasitic gaps Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Deane, P. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island constraints. Cognitive Linguistics, 2: 1-63.
31. De Villiers, J., Cahillane, J., & Altreuter, E. 2006. What can production reveal about Principle B? In K. Ud Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz, & B. D. Schwartz, The proceedings of the inaugural conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America (pp. 89-100). University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics #4.
32. den Dikken, M. 2001. Pluringulars, pronouns, and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review, 18: 19-41.
33. Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C. and Bock, J. K. 2005. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112: 531-559.
34. Elbourne, P. 2005. On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36: 333-365.
35. Elbourne, P. 2008. The interpretation of pronouns. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2: 119-150.
36. Engdahl, E. 1982. "Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish". In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, Edited by: Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. 151-174. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
37. Engdahl, E. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5: 5-34.
38. Engdahl, E. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 60: 51-79.
39. Erteschik-Shir, N. 1973. On the nature of island constraints (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
40. Evans, G. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11: 337-362.
41. Fodor, J. D. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9: 427-473.
42. Fortmann, C. 2005. Die Lücken im Bild von der Subjektlücken-Koordination. Linguistische Berichte, 204: 441-476.
43. Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. and Rizzi, L. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101: 173-216.
44. Frazier, L. 1985. "Syntactic complexity". In Natural language processing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, Edited by: Dowty, D., Karttunen, L. and Zwicky, A. 129-189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E. and Hahne, A. 1993. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological, and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1: 183-192.
46. Friederici, A. D. and Weissenborn, J. 2007. Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantic interface. Brain Research, 1146: 50-58.
47. Gibson, E. and Thomas, J. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14: 225-248.
48. Goodluck, H. and Rochemont, M. S. 1992. Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
49. Gordon, P. C. and Hendrick, R. 1997. Intuitive knowledge of linguistic coreference. Cognition, 62: 325-370.
50. Grimshaw, J. and Rosen, S. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 21: 187-222.
51. Grodzinsky, Y. and Reinhart, T. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 69-101.
52. Grosu, A. 1973. On the status of the so-called right roof constraint. Language, 49: 294-311.
53. Guilliot, N. 2006. A top-down analysis for reconstruction. Lingua, 116: 1888-1914.
54. Hagoort, P., Wassenaar, M. and Brown, C. 2003. Syntax-related ERP effects in Dutch. Cognitive Brain Research, 16: 38-50.
55. Han, C. and Kim, J. 2004. Double relative clauses" in Korean?. Linguistic Inquiry, 35: 315-337.
56. Harris, C. L. and Bates, E. A. 2002. Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17: 237-269.
57. Hartsuiker, R. J., Antón-Méndez, I. and Van Zee, M. 2001. Object attraction in subject-verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45: 546-572.
58. Hartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, J. K. and Kikstra, G. M. 2003. Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory and Cognition, 31: 1316-1326.
59. Hawkins, J. A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across languages. Language, 75: 224-285.
60. Heim, I. 1998. "Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach". In The interpretive tract, Edited by: Sauerland, U. and Percus, O. 205-246. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
61. Hendriks, P., Banga, A., van Rij, J., Cannizzaro, G., & Hoeks, J. 2010. Adults' on-line comprehension of object pronouns in discourse Manuscript submitted for publication.
62. Hendriks, P. and Spenader, J. 2005. When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition, 13: 319-348.
63. Hofmeister, P. and Sag, I. A. 2010. Cognitive constraints on syntactic islands. Language, 86: 366-415.
64. Hsu, C.-C. N. 2006. Issues in head-final relative clauses in Chinese: Derivation, processing, and acquisition (PhD dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
65. Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
66. Hyams, N. and Wexler, K. 1993. The grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 421-459.
67. Ishizuka, T. 2009. CNPC violations and possessor raising in Japanese. Los Angeles, CA, UCLA.
68. Jakubowicz, C. 1984. "On markedness and binding principles". In Proceedings of NELS 14, Edited by: Jones, C. and Sells, P. 154-182. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistics Student Association.
69. Kaan, E. 2007. Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1: 571-591.
70. Kaan, E., Choi, J., Rowlings, B., Ballantyne, J., & Wijnen, F. 2009, March. Cognitive control and agreement. Poster presented at the 22nd annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Davis, CA.
71. Kaufman, D. 1988. Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children's knowledge of binding theory and reference relations (PhD dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
72. Kayne, R. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14: 223-249.
73. Kayne, R. 1989. Notes on English agreement. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages Bulletin, 1: 41-67.
74. Kazanina, N. 2005. The acquisition and processing of backwards anaphora (PhD dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
75. Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M. and Phillips, C. 2007. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56: 384-409.
76. Kazanina, N. and Phillips, C. 2010. Differential effects of constraints in the processing of backwards anaphora. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63: 371-400.
77. Kempson, R. and Kiaer, J. 2010. Multiple long-distance scrambling: Syntax as reflections of processing. Journal of Linguistics, 46: 127-192.
78. Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. and Gabbay, D. 2001. Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
79. Kennison, S. 2003. Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 52: 205-225.
80. Kimball, J. and Aissen, J. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry, 2: 241-246.
81. Kluender, R. 1998. "On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective". In Syntax and semantics 29: The limits of syntax, Edited by: Culicover, P. and McNally, L. 241-279. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
82. Kluender, R. 2005. Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A. J. Rodriguez, & B. Schmeiser, Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast conference on linguistics (pp. 475-499). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
83. Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8: 573-633.
84. Krifka, M. 1990. Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13: 487-520.
85. Kuno, S. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86. Kuno, S. 1976. Subject, theme, and speaker's empathy-a reexamination of relativization phenomena In C. Li, Subject and topic (pp. 417-444). New York: Academic Press.
87. Kush, D. 2010. On the escapability of islands in Scandinavian. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
88. Lee, M.-W., & Williams, J. 2006. The role of grammatical constraints in intra-sentential pronoun resolution. London and Cambridge, UK: London Metropolitan University and University of Cambridge.
89. Lewis, R. L. and Vasishth, S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29: 1-45.
90. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S. and van Dyke, J. A. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 447-454.
91. McKee, C. 1992. A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition, 2: 21-54.
92. Manning, C. and Schütze, H. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
93. Maratsos, M., & Kowalsky, M. 2005, January. Mild subjacency violations and awkward grammatical sentences receive similar grammatical acceptability judgments from speakers. Talk presented at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, Oakland, CA.
94. Matsuoka, K. 1997. Binding conditions in young children's grammar: Interpretations of pronouns inside conjoined NPs. Language Acquisition, 6: 37-48.
95. Mazuka, R., Jincho, N. and Oishi, H. 2009. Development of executive control and language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3: 59-89.
96. McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. and Hsu, J. 1990. Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1: 121-139.
97. McElree, B. and Griffith, T. 1998. Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24: 432-460.
98. Montalbetti, M. 1984. After binding (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
99. Neville, H. J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K. I. and Garrett, M. F. 1991. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3: 151-165.
100. Nicol, J. and Swinney, D. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18: 5-19.
101. Nordgaard, T. 1985. Word order, binding, and the empty category principle (Cand. Philol. Thesis). University of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway.
102. Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. in press. Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
103. Osterhout, L. and Mobley, L. A. 1995. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34: 739-773.
104. Phillips, C. 1995. Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. In C. Schütze, J. Ganger, & K. Broihier, Papers on Language Acquisition and Processing (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, volume 26) (pp. 225-282). Reprinted (2010) in Language Acquisition, 17, 70-120.
105. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M. and Bock, J. K. 1999. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41: 427-456.
106. Phillips, C. 1996. Order and structure (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
107. Phillips, C. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34: 37-90.
108. Phillips, C. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82: 795-823.
109. Phillips, C. and Wagers, M. 2007. "Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics". In Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, Edited by: Gaskell, G. 739-756. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
110. Poeppel, D. and Wexler, K. 1993. The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69: 1-33.
111. Poulton, E. C. 1954. Eye-hand span in simple serial tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47: 403-410.
112. Pritchett, B. L. 1991. Subjacency in a principle-based parser. In R. C. Berwick, Principlebased parsing: Computation and psycholinguistics (pp. 301-345). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
113. Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation, London: Croom Helm.
114. Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface strategies: optimal and costly computations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
115. Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 657-720.
116. Richards, N. 1999. Dependency formation and directionality of tree construction. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 34: 67-105.
117. Rizzi, L. 1994. Some notes on linguistic theory and language acquisition: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3: 371-393.
118. Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax (PhD dissertation), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
119. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S. and Tanenhaus, M. K. 2006. Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30: 193-241.
120. Sakai, H. 1994. "Complex NP constraint and case conversions in Japanese". In Current topics in English and Japanese, Edited by: Nakamura, M. 179-203. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
121. Schlenker, P. 1999. La flexion de l'adjectif en allemand: La morphologie de haut en bas. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 28: 115-132.
122. Shan, C.-C. and Barker, C. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29: 91-134.
123. Sohn, H. 1980. Theme prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics, 2: 2-19.
124. Spenader, J., Smits, E.-J. and Hendriks, P. 2009. Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem. Journal of Child Language, 36: 23-52.
125. Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. 2010. A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects Manuscript submitted for publication.
126. Staub, A. 2009. On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60: 308-327.
127. Steiner, I. 2009. "Partial agreement in German: A processing issue?". In The fruits of empirical linguistics, Edited by: Featherston, S. and Winkler, S. Vol. II, 239-260. Berlin: de Gruyter.
128. Stevens, S. S. 1957. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64: 153-181.
129. Stowe, L. A. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3: 227-245.
130. Sturt, P. 2003. The time course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48: 542-562.
131. Taraldsen, K. T. 1982. "Extraction from relative clauses in Norwegian". In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, Edited by: Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. 205-221. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
132. Thornton, R. and Wexler, K. 1999. Principle B., VP-ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
133. Tokimoto, S. 2009. Island phenomenon in Japanese and working memory: Syntactic constraints independent from working memory constraints Poster presented at the 22nd annual CUNY sentence processing conference, Davis, CA.
134. Townsend, D. J. and Bever, T. G. 2001. Sentence comprehension: the integration of habits and rules, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
135. Traxler, M. J. and Pickering, M. J. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35: 454-475.
136. Treisman, A. and Gelade, G. 1980. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12: 97-106.
137. Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. and Logrip, M. L. 1999. The kindergarten path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in children. Cognition, 73: 89-134.
138. van Gompel, R. and Liversedge, S. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29: 128-139.
139. Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. and Garrett, M. F. 1996. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61: 261-298.
140. Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F. and Phillips, C. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61: 206-237.
141. Wagers, M. and Phillips, C. 2009. Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics, 45: 395-433.
142. Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., Fults, S., & Phillips, C. 2009, March. The role of event comparison in comparative illusions. Poster presented at the CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Davis, CA.