Processing Determinism

Language Learning

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 6-32

  O'Grady, William ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

Development; Language acquisition; Processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938505124     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/lang.12091     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language. Journal of Child Language, 42.
2. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2015). A (neo-)constructivist account of child language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney & W. O'Grady (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence. Boston: Wiley.
3. Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. D. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235-243.
4. Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind's hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
5. Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47, 383-411.
6. Bergmann, C., Paulus, M., & Fikkert, P. (2012). Preschoolers' comprehension of pronouns and reflexives: The impact of the task. Journal of Child Language, 39, 777-803.
7. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22, 381-410.
9. Chien, Y., & 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.
10. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
11. Chomsky, N. (2008). The biolinguistic program: Where does it stand today? Available at http://clt.blcu.edu.cn/resource/[[1].Chomsky_2008_bio-todayGood.gd.pdf
12. Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children's processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128-144.
13. 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.
14. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320-358). Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.
15. Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7-21.
17. Déprez, V., & Pierce, A. (1993). Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 25-67.
18. Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Utman, J., Dronkers, N., & Gernsbacher, M. (2001). Language deficits, localization and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasics and normals. Psychological Review, 108, 759-788.
19. Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245-258.
20. Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
21. Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164-194.
22. Ellis, R. (2015). Researching acquisition sequences. Idealisation and Deidealisation SLA. Language Learning, 65, 181-209.
23. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164-203.
24. Filipović, L., & Hawkins, J. (2013). Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics, 51, 145-176.
25. Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 357-383.
26. Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55, 27-77.
27. Han, C., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 1-48.
28. Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29. Hawkins, J. (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in relation to language universals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 337-344.
30. Herschensohn, J. (2009). Fundamental and gradient differences in language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 259-289.
31. Hickok, G. (2009). Understanding language without ability to speak. Talking Brains: News and Views on the Neural Organization of Language. Available at http://www.talkingbrains.org/2009/03/understanding-language-without-ability.html
32. Hoff, E., & Naigles, L. (2002). How children use input to acquire a lexicon. Child Development, 73, 418-433.
33. Housman, A., Dameg, K., Kobashigawa, M., & Brown, J. D. (2011). Report on the Hawaiian oral language assessment (H-OLA) development project. Second Language Studies, 29, 1-59.
34. Hsieh, L., Leonard, L., & Swanson, L. (1999). Some differences between English plural noun inflections and third singular verb inflections in the input: The contribution of frequency, sentence position, and duration. Journal of Child Language, 26, 531-543.
35. Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236-248.
36. Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. London: Edward Arnold.
37. Jaeger, T., & Tily, H. (2011). On language "utility": Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 323-235.
38. Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
39. Joanisse, M., & Seidenberg, M. (2003). Phonology and syntax in specific language impairment: Evidence from a connectionist model. Brain and Language, 86, 40-56.
40. Jurafsky, D. (2003). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In R. Bod, J. Hayy, & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 39-95). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
42. Kurtzman, H., & MacDonald, M. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243-279.
43. Lee, S. (2009). Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifiers and negation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.
44. Lenneberg, E. (1962). Understanding language without ability to speak: A case report. Journal of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology, 65, 419-425.
45. Love, T., Walenski, M., & Swinney, D. (2009). Slowed speech input has a differential impact on on-line and off-line processing in children's comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 285-304.
46. Luk, Z., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and possessive 's. Language Learning, 59, 721-754.
47. MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249-308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed., Vol. 2:The database). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31, 883-914.
50. Menn, L. (2000). Let's face a simple question: Why is canonical form simple? Brain and Language, 71, 157-159.
51. Monou, T., & Kawahara, S. (2013). The emergence of the unmarked in L2 acquisition: Interpreting null subjects. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Available at http://user.keio.ac.jp/~kawahara/pdf/MonouKawahara.pdf
52. Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141-176.
53. Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential object marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 363-383.
54. Murakami, A. (2013). Individual variation and the role of L1 in the L2 development of English grammatical morphemes: Insights from learner corpora. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
55. Musolino, J., Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics, 38, 1-32.
56. Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2006). Why children aren't universally successful with quantification. Linguistics, 44, 817-852.
57. O'Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. O'Grady, W. (2012). Language acquisition without an dacquisition device Language Teaching. 45, 116-30.
59. O'Grady, W. (2013). The illusion of language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 253-285.
60. O'Grady, W. (2015). Anaphora and the case for emergentism. In B. MacWhinney & W. O'Grady (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence (pp. 100-122). Boston: Wiley.
61. O'Grady, W., Kwak, H., Lee, M., & Lee, O. (2011). An emergentist perspective on partial language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 323-345.
62. Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63. Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
64. Pienemann, M., & Kessler, J. (Eds.). (2011). Studying processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
65. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.
66. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Reference-set computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67. Reuland, E. (2011). Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. Roeper, T. (2007). The prism of grammar: How child language illuminates humanism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69. Sekerina, I., Stromswold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns? Journal of Child Language, 31, 123-152.
70. Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71. Shi, R. (2014). Functional morphemes and early language acquisition. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 6-11.
72. Snyder, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2011). Principles and parameters theory and language acquisition. In P. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of language sciences (pp. 670-673). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
73. Soderstrom, M., Conwell, E., Feldman, N., & Morgan, J. (2009). The learners as statistician: Three principles of computational success in language acquisition. Developmental Science, 12, 409-11.
74. Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2007). Discourse prominence effects on 2.5-year-old children's interpretation of pronouns. Lingua, 117, 1959-1987.
75. Song, J., Sundara, M., & Demuth, K. (2009). Phonological constraints on children's production of English third person singular -s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 623-642.
76. Sundara, M., Demuth, K., & Kuhl, P. (2011). Sentence-position effects on children's perception and production of English third person singular -s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 55-71.
77. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
78. Townsend, D. & Bever, T. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
79. van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 55-84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
80. VanPatten, B. (2012). Input processing. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 268-281). New York: Routledge.
81. Van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., & Hendriks, P. (2010). Cognitive architectures and language acquisition: A case study in pronoun comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 37, 731-766.
82. Verspoor, M., & van Dijk, M. (2011). Visualizing interactions between variables. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 85-98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
83. Wexler, K. (1990). Innateness and maturation in linguistic development. Developmental Psychobiology, 23, 645-660.
84. Yang, C. (2004). Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 451-456.