CHAPTER 6 – Linguistic and psycholinguistic foundations

[1]  Jon Andoni Duñabeitia,et al.  Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque , 2010, Cognition.

[2]  Sarah M. Callahan,et al.  Processing anaphoric constructions: Insights from electrophysiological studies , 2008, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[3]  R. Levy.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[4]  Naama Friedmann,et al.  Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence comprehension: number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[5]  Shari R. Speer,et al.  Using Interactive Tasks to Elicit Natural Dialogue , 2006 .

[6]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses , 2005 .

[7]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Processing relative clauses in Chinese , 2003, Cognition.

[8]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies , 2003 .

[9]  John Hale,et al.  The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[10]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements , 2002 .

[11]  M J Pickering,et al.  Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: lexical information and verb-argument assignment. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Ambiguity Resolution in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Frequency-Based Accounts , 2000 .

[13]  A J Schafer,et al.  Intonational Disambiguation in Sentence Production and Comprehension , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[14]  E. Gibson.  Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[15]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[16]  David Swinney,et al.  Gap-Filling and End-of-Sentence Effects in Real-Time Language Processing: Implications for Modeling Sentence Comprehension in Aphasia , 1998, Brain and Language.

[17]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[18]  J. Pynte,et al.  Evidence for Early Closure Attachment on First Pass Reading Times in French , 1997 .

[19]  Lars Konieczny,et al.  The Role of Lexical Heads in Parsing: Evidence from German , 1997 .

[20]  L P Shapiro,et al.  Prosodic influences on the resolution of temporary ambiguity during on-line sentence processing , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[21]  S R Speer,et al.  The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[22]  Lewis P. Shapiro,et al.  Prosody and the processing of filler-gap sentences , 1994, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[23]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[24]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[25]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Direct association and sentence processing: A reply to gorrell and to Gibson and Hickok , 1993 .

[26]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  D. Swinney,et al.  On the temporal course of gap-filling during comprehension of verbal passives , 1993, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[28]  Lewis P. Shapiro,et al.  Preferences for a Verb′s Complements and Their Use in Sentence Processing , 1993 .

[29]  Cheryl M. Beach,et al.  The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations☆ , 1991 .

[30]  M. Just,et al.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory , 1991 .

[31]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[32]  L P Shapiro,et al.  Verb effects during sentence processing. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  Steven P. Abney,et al.  Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. , 1991 .

[34]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  The Use of Prosody in Syntactic Disambiguation , 1991, HLT.

[35]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing , 1990 .

[36]  J Grimshaw,et al.  Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[37]  F. Cuetos,et al.  Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish , 1988, Cognition.

[38]  Bradley L. Pritchett.  Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing , 1988 .

[39]  E. Zurif,et al.  Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs , 1987, Cognition.

[40]  K. Rayner,et al.  Parsing Temporarily Ambiguous Complements , 1987 .

[41]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[42]  Marily Ford,et al.  A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences , 1983 .

[43]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  D. Swinney.  Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[45]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.

[46]  V. M. Holmes,et al.  Perceptual Complexity and Underlying Sentence Structure , 1972 .

[47]  J. Fodor,et al.  Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity, II : Verb structure , 1968 .

[48]  J. Fodor,et al.  Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity , 1967 .

[49]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules , 1963 .

[50]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[51]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[52]  E. Keenan,et al.  Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar , 2008 .

[53]  B. MacWhinney.  How Mental Models Encode Embodied Linguistic Perspectives , 2008 .

[54]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Subject preference in Korean , 2006 .

[55]  D Swinney,et al.  Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions; Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[56]  D Swinney,et al.  The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[57]  C. Clifton,et al.  Comprehending Sentences with Long-Distance Dependencies , 1989 .

[58]  S. Vasishth,et al.  Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[59]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Science Current Directions in Psychological Good-enough Representations in Language Comprehension on Behalf Of: Association for Psychological Science , 2022 .

[60]  Elena G. Patsenko,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pupillometry Reveals Processing Load during Spoken Language Comprehension , 2022 .