Foundational issues

Journal of Linguistics

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 571-591

  Colin, Phillips ^a   Ellen, Lau ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b Department of Linguistics ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85022750401     PISSN: 00222267     EISSN: 14697742     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022226704002774     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Abney, S. & Johnson, M. (1991). Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20. 233-250.
2. Aoshima, S. (2003). The parsing and grammar of wh-dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
3. Aoshima, S., Phillips, C. & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a headfinal language. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 23-54.
4. Bock, J. K. (1995). Sentence production: from mind to mouth. In Miller, J. L. & Eimas, P. D. (eds.), Speech, language, and communication. San Diego: Academic Press. 181-216.
5. Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M. & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 34. 774-806.
6. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Crain, S. & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L. & Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), Natural language parsing: psycholinguistic, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 94-128.
9. de Villiers, J. G. (in press). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In Astington, J. W. & Baird, J. A. (eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J. & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology 55. 149-179.
11. Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: a connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47. 164-203.
13. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G. & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
14. Friederici, A. (2001). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 78-84.
15. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1-76.
16. Griffiths, T. V. & Petrick, S. R. (1965). On the relative efficiencies of context free grammar recognizers. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 8. 289-300.
17. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In Brown, C. M. & Hagoort, P. (eds.), Neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 273-316.
18. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hummel, J. & Holyoak, K. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: a theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review 104. 427-467.
20. Inoue, A. (1991). A comparative study of parsing in Japanese and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
21. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Kamide, Y. & Mitchell, D. C. (1999). Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 14. 631-662.
23. Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Phillips, C. & Yoshida, M. (2004). Use of grammatical constraints in the processing of backwards anaphora. Talk at the 17th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, College Park, MD.
24. Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
25. Levelt, W. J. M. (1974). Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics (3 vols.). The Hague: Mouton.
26. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science 189. 226-228.
27. Mazuka, R. & Itoh, K. (1995). Can Japanese speakers be led down the garden path? In Mazuka, R. & Nagai, N. (eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 295-329.
28. McElree, B. & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence processing: a time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 24. 432-460.
29. Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
30. Nicol, J. L. & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18. 5-20.
31. Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
32. Phillips, C. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 37-90.
33. Phillips, C. (2004a). Linguistics and linking problems. In Rice, M. & Warren, S. (eds.), Developmental language disorders: from phenotypes to etiologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 241-287.
34. Phillips, C. (2004b). The real-time status of island constraints. Ms., University of Maryland. [Submitted.]
35. Pickering, M. J. & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: lexical information and verb-argument assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 27. 1401-1410.
36. Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1995). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. Pulvermü ller, F. (2003). The neuroscience of language: on brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Richards, N. (1999). Dependency formation and directionality of tree construction. In Lin, V., Krause, C., Bruening, B. & Arregi, K. (eds.), Papers on morphology and syntax, cycle two (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 67-105.
39. Richards, N. (2002). Movement in a top-down derivation. In Epstein, S. & Seely, D. (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist program. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Riecke, F., Warland, D., deRuyter van Steveninck, R. & Bialek, W. (1996). Spikes: exploring the neural code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Saito, M. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
41. Schneider, D. (1999). Parsing and incrementality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.
42. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Shastri, L. & Ajjanagadde, V. (1993). From simple association to systematic reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16. 417-494.
43. Spelke, E. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 277-311.
44. Steedman, M. (2000a). The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Steedman, M. (2000b). Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 649-689.
46. Stowe, L. A. (1986). ParsingWH-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1. 227-245.
47. Sturt, P. (2003). The time course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 542-562.
48. Townsend, D. & Bever, T. (2001). Sentence comprehension: the integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. 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.
50. van der Velde, F. & de Kamps, M. (2004). Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures in cognition Ms., University of Leiden & Technische Universität München.
51. Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
52. Whitney, C. & Weinberg, A. (2003). Representing a parse in the brain: the TPARRSE model. Ms., University of Maryland.
53. Yoshida, M., Aoshima, S. & Phillips, C. (2004). Relative clause prediction in Japanese. Ms., University of Maryland.
54. Zec, D. & Inkelas, S. (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In Inkelas, S. & Zec, D. (eds.), The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 365-378.