Syntactic complexity effects in sentence production

Cognitive Science

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 559-583

  Scontras, Gregory ^a   Badecker, William ^b   Shank, Lisa ^c   Lim, Eunice ^d   Fedorenko, Evelina ^e  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^c UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Relative clauses; Sentence processing; Sentence production; Syntactic complexity; Wh questions; Working memory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; COGNITIVE SCIENCE; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; REACTION TIME; RESEARCH DESIGN; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84926964905     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: 15516709     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12168     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Allum, P., & Wheeldon, L. (2007). Planning scope in spoken sentence production: The role of grammatical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 791-810.
2. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278.
3. Bock, J. K. (1987). An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 119-137.
4. Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945-984). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
5. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2006). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.3.10) [Computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org/. Accessed October 5, 2008.
6. Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1044-1098.
7. Brennan, S., Galati, A., & Kuhlen, A. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 53 (pp. 301-344). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.
8. Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (2008). Little houses and casas pequeñas: Message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition, 109, 274-280.
9. Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592-609.
10. Calude, A. S., & Pagel, M. (2011). How do we use language? Shared patterns in the frequency of word use across 17 word languages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 366, 1101-1107.
11. Collins, M. (1996). A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the ACL (pp. 184-191). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
12. Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109, 193-210.
13. Duffield, C. J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2011). Why subject relatives prevail: Constraints versus constructional licensing. Language and Cognition, 3, 171-208.
14. Fedorenko, E., Woodbury, R., & Gibson, E. (2013). Direct evidence of memory retrieval as a source of difficulty in long-distance structural dependencies in language. Cognitive Science, 37, 378-394.
15. Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715-736.
16. 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.
17. Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). The effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.
18. Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 57-84.
19. Fitz, H., Chang, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2011). A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In E. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses. Vol. 8 (pp. 39-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20. Garrett, M. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production. Vol. 1 (pp. 177-220)., Speech and talk London: Academic Press.
21. Garrett, M. (1982). Production of speech: Observations from normal and pathological language use. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 19-76). New York: Academic Press.
22. Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161-187.
23. Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111, 1-23.
24. Gennari, S., Mirkovic, J., & MacDonald, M. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 141-176.
25. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
26. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (2011). The domain-generality of working memory resources for language. Paris: AMLaP conference.
28. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of psycholinguistic constraints on PP attachment. In C. Clifton Jr, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives in sentence processing (pp. 181-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., Ichinco, D., & Fedorenko, E. (2012). Evaluating structural overlap across constructions: Inter-subject analysis of co-variation. Portland, OR: Talk presented at the Linguistic Society of America.
30. 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.
31. Gibson, E., Tily, H., & Fedorenko, E. (2013).The processing complexity of English relative clauses. In M. Sanz, I. Laka, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Language down the garden path: The cognitive and biological basis for linguistic structures. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
32. Gildea, D., & Temperley, D. (2010). Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science, 34, 286-310.
33. Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.
34. Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114.
35. Griffin, Z., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274-279.
36. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29, 261-290.
37. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL (Vol. 2, pp. 159-166). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
38. Hawkins, J. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39. Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23-62.
42. King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
43. Kuperman, V., & Bresnan, J. (2012). The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 588-611.
44. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126-1177.
45. Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2013). The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 461-495.
46. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375-419.
47. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447-454.
48. MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language, 53, 152-168.
49. Martin, R., Crowther, J., Knight, M., Tamborello, F., & Yang, C.-L. (2010). Planning in sentence production: Evidence for the phrase as a default planning scope. Cognition, 116, 177-192.
50. McDonald, J. L., Bock, J. K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188-230.
51. McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67-91.
52. Montag, J. L., & MacDonald, M. (2009). Word order doesn't matter: Relative clause production in English and Japanese. In N. A. Taatgen & van Rijn H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2594-2599). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. O'Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In E. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
54. Paul, H. (1880). Prinzipien der sprachgeschichte [Principles of the history of language]. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.
55. Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1-23.
56. Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348-379.
57. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
58. Schnur, T. T. (2011). Phonological planning during sentence production: Beyond the verb. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(319), 1-15.
59. Shen, W., Strassel, S., & Cieri, C. (2007). Software Tools for Transcription and Annotation of Interview Recordings. NWAV 36.
60. Shen, W., White, C. M., & Hazen, T. J. (2009). A comparison of query-by-example methods for spoken term detection. INTERSPEECH 2009, 4, Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc. 2107-2110.
61. Slevc, L. R. (2011). Saying what's on your mind: Working memory effects on sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1503-1514.
62. Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205-246.
63. Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 71-86.
64. Temperley, D. (2007). Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition, 105, 300-333.
65. 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, 47, 69-90.
66. Troyer, M., O'Donnell, T. J., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2011). Storage and computation in syntax: Evidence from relative clause priming. In N.A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 336-341). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
67. Van Dyke, J., & Lewis, R. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285-316.
68. Vasishth, S., & Drenhaus, H. (2011). Locality effects in German. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1), 59-82.
69. Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Wells, J. B., 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.