Storage and computation in syntax: Evidence from relative clause priming

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 336-341

  Troyer, Melissa ^a   O’Donnell, Timothy J ^b   Fedorenko, Evelina ^a   Gibson, Edward ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

priming; relative clauses; syntax

Indexed keywords

CLAUSE TYPE; COMPOSITIONAL STRUCTURE; DIJKSTRA; HIGH-FREQUENCY WORDS; ON-THE-FLY; PRIMING; RELATIVE CLAUSE; SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE; SYNTAX; TEST CASE;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 84918497971     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. Alegre, M. and Gordon, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 40:41–61.
2. Arnon, I. and Snider, N. (2010). More than words: speakers are sensitive to the frequency of multi-word sequences. Journal of Memory and Language, 62:67–82.
3. Baayen, R.H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94-117.
4. Baayen, R. H., Burani, C., and Schreuder, R. (1997). Effects of semantic markedness in the processing of regular nominal singulars and plurals in Italian. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., editors, Yearbook of morphology 1996. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Bannard, C. and Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science.
6. Bertram, R., Laine, M., and Karvinen, K. (1999). The interplay of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity in lexical processing: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(3):213–225.
7. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
8. Bock, J.K. Syntactic persistence in language production. (1986). Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355-387.
9. Bod, R. (2001). Sentence memory: Storage vs. computation of frequent sentences. Talk presented at CUNY.
10. Bod, R., Scha, R., & Sima’an, K. (eds.) (2003). Data-Oriented Parsing. CSLI Publications, University of Chicago Press.
11. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
12. Desmet, T. & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 610-632.
13. Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Constructions at Work. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
14. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press, New York.
15. Mak, W.M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50-68.
16. Marcus, M.P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M.A. (1995). Treebank 2. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
17. Mel’čuk, I. (1988). Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice,. The SUNY Press, Albany, N.Y.
18. Munro, Robert. 2010. Crowdsourced translation for emergency response and beyond. NSF Workshop on crowdsourcing and translation, University of Maryland.
19. O’Donnell, T. J. (2011). Productivity and Reuse in Language. PhD thesis, Harvard University.
20. Reali, F. & Christiansen, M.H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1-23.
21. Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J.L. (2007). Frequency of basic grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348-379.
22. Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89(3), 179-205.
23. Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., and Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. CSLI, Stanford, CA, 2 edition.
24. Sereno, J. A. and Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition, 25(4):415–437.
25. Steedman, M. (2000). The Syntactic Process. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.
26. Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204-224.
27. Tremblay, A. (2009). Processing Advantages of Lexical Bundles: Evidence from Self-paced Reading, Word and Sentence Recall, and Free Recall with Event-related Brain Potential Recordings. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Department of Linguistics.
28. Wanner, E. & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G.A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality (pp. 119-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.