Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:53:16.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 585 - 769
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arregui, A., Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 232–246.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S. & Wexler, K. (1992). Development of Principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition, 2, 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar
Boster, C. (1991). Children’s failure to obey Principle B: Syntactic problem or lexical error? Unpublished MS, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, E282.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2016). Naturalistic sentence comprehension in the brain. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. R. & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe. Cognitive Science, 41, 1515–1531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, J. R., Stabler, E. P., Van Wagenen, S. E., Luh, W., & Hale, J. (2016). Abstract linguistic structure correlates with temporal activity during naturalistic comprehension. Brain and Language, 157, 81–94.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I., & Wechsler, S. (2015). Lexical Functional Syntax, 2nd ed. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Burnsky, J. & Staub, A. (2019). Completion tasks reveal misinterpretations of noncanonical sentences. Talk at Psycholinguistics in Iceland – Parsing and Prediction. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Chien, Y. C. & 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.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Kurenkov, I., Buffinton, J., Kraut, R., & Phillips, C. (2015). How predictions change over time: Evidence from an online cloze paradigm. Poster presented at the 28th annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 803–828.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Momma, S., Smith, C., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2016). Prediction as memory retrieval: Timing and mechanisms. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 617–627.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y. & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusion in the semantic P600 phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 577–596.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting interference profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 333–365.Google Scholar
Ettinger, A., Linzen, T., & Marantz, A. (2014). The role of morphology in phoneme prediction: Evidence from MEG. Brain and Language, 129, 14–23.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review, 22, 365–380.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 263–278.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gagnepain, P., Henson, R. N., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Temporal predictive codes for spoken words in auditory cortex. Current Biology, 22(7), 615–621.Google Scholar
Gaston, P., Huang, N., & Phillips, C. (2017). The logic of syntactic priming and acceptability judgments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e289.Google Scholar
Gaston, P., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2019). Syntactic category does not inhibit lexical competition. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon (Mental Lexicon 2018). Edmonton: University of Alberta. DOI: 10.7939/r3-1t0d-5833Google Scholar
Gaston, P. & Marantz, A. (2018). The time course of contextual cohort effects in auditory processing of category-ambiguous words: MEG evidence for a single “clash” as noun or verb. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 402–423.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 88–124.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.Google Scholar
Grolla, E. (2005). Pronouns as elsewhere elements: Implications for language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Gwilliams, L. & Marantz, A. (2015). Non-linear processing of a linear speech stream: The influence of morphological structure on the recognition of spoken Arabic words. Brain and Language, 147, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, J., Dyer, C., Kuncoro, A., & Brennan, J. R. (2018). Finding syntax in human encephalography with beam search. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1806.04127Google Scholar
Hammerly, C., Staub, A., & Dillon, B. (2019). The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70–104.Google Scholar
Han, C., Elouazizi, N., Galeano, C., Görgülü, E., Hedberg, N., Hinnell, J., Jeffrey, M., Kim, K., & Kirby, S. (2012). Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. In Arnett, N. & Bennett, R., eds., Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 153–161.Google Scholar
Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 138–152.Google Scholar
Hestvik, A. & Philip, W. (1999/2000). Binding and coreference in Norwegian child language. Language Acquisition, 8, 171–235.Google Scholar
Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59–73.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 59, 193–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, D. (1988). Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children’s knowledge of binding theory and reference relations. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar
Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.Google Scholar
Kim, C., Kobele, G. M., Runner, J. T., & Hale, J. T. (2011). The acceptability cline in VP-ellipsis. Syntax, 14, 318–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, J. & Aissen, J. (1971). I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 241–246.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 489–530.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 217, 117–129.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470.Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax – Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 27–46.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. & Sarma, J. (1989). Against the bound variable hypothesis of the acquisition of Condition B. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lucas, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 385–398.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Immediate effects of form-class constraints on spoken word recognition. Cognition, 108(3), 866–873.Google Scholar
Mantegna, F., Hintz, F., Ostarek, M., Alday, P. M., & Huettig, F. (2019). Distinguishing integration and prediction accounts of ERP N400 modulation in language processing through experimental design. Neuropsychologia, 134: 107199. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107199Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H., & Hsu, J. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 121–139.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 155–200.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Kraut, R., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2017). Timing of syntactic and lexical priming reveals structure building mechanisms in production. Talk at the 30th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Luo, Y., Sakai, H., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). Lexical predictions and the structure of semantic memory: EEG evidence from case changes. Talk at the 29th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2018). Unaccusativity in sentence production. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 181–194.Google Scholar
Muller, H., de Dios Flores, I., & Phillips, C. (2019). Not (just) any licensors cause negative polarity illusions. Talk at Psycholinguistics in Iceland – Parsing and Prediction. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. J., El Karoui, I., Giber, K., Yang, X., Cohen, L., Koopman, H., Cash, S. S., Naccache, L., Hale, J. T., Pallier, C., & Dehaene, S. (2017). Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, E3669-E3678.Google Scholar
Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for the use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1402–1456.Google Scholar
Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, J. K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Philip, W. & Coopmans, P. (1996). The double Dutch delay of Principle B effect. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E., & Zukowski, A., eds., Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 576–587.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795–803.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2010). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P., & Sohn, S.-O. (eds.), Japanese–Korean Linguistics 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 409–453.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Parker, D. (2014). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78–95.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. Experiments at the Interfaces, 37, 147–180.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M. (2000). The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar
Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., Brown, H. E., & Berg, J. J. (2018). Keep listening: Grammatical context reduces but does not eliminate activation of unexpected words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 962–973.Google Scholar
Strauss, T. J., Harris, H. D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2007). jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 19–30.Google Scholar
Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Stroud, C. & Phillips, C. (2012). Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language, 120, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturt, P. (2003). The time course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–440.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP Ellipsis, and Interpretation in Child Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Syntactic priming during sentence comprehension: Evidence for the lexical boost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 905–918.Google Scholar
Tyler, L. K. (1984). The structure of the initial cohort: Evidence from gating. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 417–427.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 443–467.Google Scholar
Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L, & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685–712.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar
Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35, 543–583.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., Wagers, M., Liu, F., & Guo, T. (2014). Processing covert dependencies: An SAT study on Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23, 207–232.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Wang, S., & Cui, Y. (2015). Constructing covert dependencies: The case of Mandarin wh-in-situ dependency. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 139–166.Google Scholar
Ye, Z. & Zhou, X. (2008). Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103–115.Google Scholar
Zukowski, A. & Larsen, J. (2004). The production of sentences that we fill their gaps. Poster presented at the 17th annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

References

Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. (2011). The mediation of eye movements by spoken language. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 979−1004.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., & Felser, C. (2015). Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1387. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387Google Scholar
Berwick, R. & Weinberg, A. (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A., Bates, E., & Fisher, D. (1996). The time course of grammaticality judgment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 337–406.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for immediate use of verb-based “control” information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.Google Scholar
Booth, J., MacWhinney, B., & Harasaki, Y. (2000). Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development, 71, 981–1003.Google Scholar
Bott, O. & Schlotterbeck, F. (2015). The processing domain of scope interaction. Journal of Semantics, 32, 39–92.Google Scholar
Boxell, O. (2014). Lexical fillers permit real-time gap-search in island domains. Journal of Cognitive Science, 15, 97–135.Google Scholar
Boxell, O. & Felser, C. (2017). Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 494–511.Google Scholar
Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25–45.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. & Dotlačil, J. (2015). Sentence-internal same and its quantificational licensors: A new window into the processing of inverse scope. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8, 1–52.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1998). Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., & Pesetsky, D., eds., Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 59–92.Google Scholar
Chesi, C. (2007). Five reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue, 3(1), 71–105.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J., & Keyser., S. J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. M. & Tanenhaus, M. K., eds., Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 273–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. & Staub, A. (2011). Syntactic influences on eye movements in reading. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 895–909.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In van Gompel, R. P. G., Fischer, M. H., Murray, W. S., & Hill, R. L., eds., Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 341–372.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84−107.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2014). Variable binding and coreference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 71, 39–56.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2015). Structural constraints on pronoun binding and coreference: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 840. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00840Google Scholar
Czypionka, A., Dörre, L., & Bayer, J. (2018). Inverse Case attraction: Experimental evidence for a syntactically guided process. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 21(7), 135–188.Google Scholar
Demberg, V. & Sayeed, A. (2016). The frequency of rapid pupil dilations as a measure of linguistic processing difficulty. PLOS One, 11(1). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146194Google Scholar
Dickey, M. W., Choy, J. J., & Thompson, C. K. (2007). Real-time comprehension of wh-movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100, 1–22.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Staub, A., Levy, J., & Clifton, C. (2017). Which noun phrases is this verb supposed to agree with? Object agreement in American English. Language, 93(1), 65–96.Google Scholar
Drummer, J.-D. & Felser, C. (2018). Cataphoric pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 97–113.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Gerfen, C. (2014). Using the visual world to study spoken language processing. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 93–126.Google Scholar
Dwivedi, V. D. (2013). Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: Evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing. PLOS One, 8(11), e81461. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081461Google Scholar
Enochson, K. & Culbertson, J. (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PLOS One, 10(3), 1–17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116946Google Scholar
Felser, C. (2015). Syntax and language processing. In Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A., eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1875–1911.Google Scholar
Felser, C. & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.Google Scholar
Felser, C. & Drummer, J.-D. (2017). Sensitivity to crossover constraints during native and non-native pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 771–789.Google Scholar
Felser, C. , Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11, 127–163.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 157–196.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Colonna, S., & Rizzi, L. (2015). Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 349. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00349Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2002). Processing “d-linked” phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 633–660.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency-locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A. P., & O’Neill, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Jacobson, P., Graff, P., Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2015). A pragmatic account of complexity in definite Antecedent-Contained-Deletion relative clauses. Journal of Semantics, 32(4), 579–618Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Levy, R. (2017). Post-hoc analysis decisions drive the reported reading time effects in Hackl, Koster-Hale & Varvoutis (2012). Journal of Semantics, 34, 539–546.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493Google Scholar
Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29(2), 145–206.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 20–49.Google Scholar
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 109–130.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 228–238.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Philips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar
Keating, G. (2014). Eye-tracking with text. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar
Keller, F., Gunasekharan, S., Mayo, N., & Corley, M. (2009). Timing accuracy of Web experiments: A case study using the WebExp software package. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1–12.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (2004). Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Schmeiser, B., Chand, V., Kelleher, A., & Rodriguez, A., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 23). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101–125.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. W. (2008). Eye-catching anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University (LOT Dissertation Series, 90). Utrecht, NL: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT).Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. W. (2010). Looking at anaphora: The psychological reality of the primitives of binding model. In Everaert, M. B. H., Lentz, T., De Mulder, H., Nilsen, Ø., & Zondervan, A., eds., The Linguistics Enterprise: From Knowledge of Language to Knowledge In Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 141–166.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. W., Avrutin, S., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2011). Tracking the preference for bound-variable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. In Runner, J., ed., Experiments at the Interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, 37). Leiden: Brill, pp. 69–100.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 18–40.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2017). Looking forwards and backwards: the real-time processing of strong and weak crossover. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(70). DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.280Google Scholar
Lee, M.-W. (2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentence processing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 51–73.Google Scholar
Lee, S. & O’Grady, W. (2016). Psycholinguistic evidence for inverse scope in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 871–882.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.Google Scholar
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 475–494.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 569–587.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–20.Google Scholar
Pablos Robles, L., Doetjes, J., & Cheng, L.-S. (2018). Backward dependencies and in-situ wh-questions as test cases on how to approach experimental linguistics research that pursues theoretical linguistics questions. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2237. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02237Google Scholar
Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. & Felser, C. (2019). Delayed application of binding condition C during cataphoric pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(2), 453–475.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795–823.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 11–47.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Wagers, M., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In Runner, J., ed., Experiments at the Interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, 37). Leiden: Brill, pp. 147–180.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., Barton, S. B., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K., eds., Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
Pittner, K. (1995). The case of German relatives. The Linguistic Review, 12, 197–231.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 261–303.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1971). Crossover Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Lau, E., White, I. D., Dakan, M., Apple, A., & Phillips, C. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 384. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (2011). Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T. & Head, K. D. L. (2014). What can visual world eye-tracking tell us about the binding theory? In Piñón, C., ed., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 10. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP), pp. 269–286.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 89, B1–B13.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Using eye movements as a source of linguistic evidence. In Kepser, S. & Reis, M., eds., Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 393–412.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193–241.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A., Stromswold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns? Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 123–152.Google Scholar
Shan, C.-C. & Barker, C. (2006). Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 91–134.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2013). Syntactic constraints on referential processing. In van Gompel, R. P. G., ed., Sentence Processing. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 136–159.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 542–562.Google Scholar
Tutunjian, D. & Boland, J. E. (2008). Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension. Language and Linguistic Compass, 2, 631–646.Google Scholar
Tutunjian, D., Heinat, F., Klingvall, E., & Wiklund, A.-L. (2017). Processing relative clause extractions in Swedish. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2118. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02118Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., von der Malsburg, T., & Engelmann, F. (2013). What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 125–134.Google Scholar
von der Malsburg, T. & Angele, B. (2016). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–133.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Attraction in comprehension: Representation and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. (2009) Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 161–187.Google Scholar

References

Barkley, C. & Kluender, R. (2018). Processing anaphoric relations: An electrophysiological perspective. In Gundel, J. & Abbott, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 384–410.Google Scholar
Barkley, C., Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (2015). Referential processing in the human brain: An event-related potential (ERP) study. Brain Research, 1629, 143–159.Google Scholar
Besson, M. & Macar, F. (1987). An event-related potential analysis of incongruity in music and other non-linguistic contexts. Psychophysiology, 24(1), 14–25.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multidimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 495–522.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55–73.Google Scholar
Brouwer, H. & Crocker, M. W. (2017). On the proper treatment of the N400 and P600 in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01327Google Scholar
Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143.Google Scholar
Caplan, D. (1987). Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavía, I., & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). Language and Thought. Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(7). DOI:10.1080/23273798.2018.1427878Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y. & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2015). A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 577–596.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1984). Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1996). The unity of noun-modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, 3. Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya, pp. 1077–88.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21–58.Google Scholar
Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Galambos, R. (1975). Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 39(2), 131–143.Google Scholar
Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(6), 1117–1121.Google Scholar
Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2017). Is there a replication crisis? Perhaps. Is this an example? No: A commentary on Ito, Martin, and Nieuwland (2016). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 966–973.Google Scholar
Deutsch, A. & Bentin, S. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 200–224.Google Scholar
Dikker, S. & Pylkkänen, L. (2011). Before the N400: Effects of lexical–semantic violations in visual cortex. Brain and Language, 118(1–2), 23–28.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science, 21(5), 629–634.Google Scholar
Donchin, E. (1981). “Surprise! … Surprise?” Psychophysiology, 18(5), 493–513.Google Scholar
Featherston, S., Gross, M., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. (2000). Brain potentials in the processing of complex sentences: An ERP study of control and raising constructions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 141–154.Google Scholar
Federmeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123(12), 2552–2566.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler–gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87(3), 345–354.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler–gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 321–338.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic working memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 250–272.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, R., Covey, L., & Gabriele, A. (2018). Individual differences in the processing of referential dependencies: Evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 673, 79–84.Google Scholar
Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & PerryJr., N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20(4), 400–409.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1981). The mind–body problem. Scientific American, 244(1), 114–123.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 427–473.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1983). Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(2), 163–223.Google Scholar
Foley, S. & Wagers, M. (2017). The Subject Gap Preference in a split-ergative language: Reading time evidence from Georgian. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126.Google Scholar
Frenzel, S., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2011). Conflicts in language processing: A new perspective on the N400–P600 distinction. Neuropsychologia, 49(3), 574–579.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50(3), 259–281.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research 1(3), 183–192.Google Scholar
Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12(15), 3391–3394.Google Scholar
Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 484–498.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Grey, S., Tanner, D., & van Hell, J.G. (2017). How right is left? Handedness modulates neural responses during morphosyntactic processing. Brain Research, 1669, 27–43.Google Scholar
Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660–676.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, H., Soshi, T., Ishihara, M., & Imanaka, K. (2007). A topographical study on the event-related potential correlates of scrambled word order in Japanese complex sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 175–193.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439–483.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194–205.Google Scholar
Haupt, F. S., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., Friedrici, A. D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension literature. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 54–96.Google Scholar
Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017a). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 954–965.Google Scholar
Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017b). Why the A/AN prediction effect may be hard to replicate: A rebuttal to Delong, Urbach, and Kutas (2017). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 974–983.Google Scholar
Janata, P. (1995). ERP measures assay the degree of expectancy violation of harmonic contexts in music. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7(2), 153–164.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (2007). Factors affecting the processing of Japanese relative clauses by L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 197–218.Google Scholar
Karimi, H., Swaab, T. Y., & Ferreira, F. (2018). Electrophysiological evidence for an independent effect of memory retrieval on referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 68–82.Google Scholar
Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–222.Google Scholar
King, J. W. & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602.Google Scholar
King, J. W. & Kutas, M. A. (1995). Who did what and when: Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 376–395.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1992). Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition, and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 223–258.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. W. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (2003). In search of the golden slash: Prospecting for biological explanations of language. In Moore, J. & Polinsky, M., eds., The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993a). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196–214.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993b). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 573–633.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., Münte, T., Cowles, H. W., Szentkuti, A., Walenski, M., & Wieringa, B. (1998). Brain potentials to English and German questions. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. & Chwilla, D. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language, 100, 257–261.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Kos, M., Vosse, T., van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00222Google Scholar
Kounios, J. & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 459–479.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(1), 117–129.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99–116.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11(5), 539–550.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Lindamood, T., & Hillyard, S. (1984). Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. In Kornblum, S. & Requin, J., eds., Preparatory States and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 217–237.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69(3), 218–233.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language, 8(3), 537–585.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P.C., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546–582.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., & Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Sturt, P., & Liu, P. (2017). Predicting semantic features in Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Cognition, 166, 433–446.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Clarke, N., Socolof, M., Asatiani, R., & Polinsky, M. (2019). A subject relative clause preference in a split-ergative language: ERP evidence from Georgian. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lau, E. & Liao, C.-H. (2017). Linguistic structure across time: ERP responses to coordinated and uncoordinated noun phrases. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(5), pp. 633–647.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98(1), 74–88.Google Scholar
Luck, S. J. (2005). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011a). When persons disagree: An ERP study of Unagreement in Spanish. Psychophysiology, 48, 1361–1371.Google Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011b). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1410, 64–76.Google Scholar
McKinnon, R. & Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(5), 495–524.Google Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Moore, J. & Polinsky, M., eds.. (2003). The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Heinze, H.-J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36(3), 217–226.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(3), 318–329.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature, 395(6697), 71–73.Google Scholar
Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3(2), 151–165.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S. & Kuperberg, G. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 228–236.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., von Grebmer, zu Wolfsthurn, S., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D. J., Rousselet, G. A., Ferguson, H. J., Busch-Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Husband, E. M., Donaldson, D. I., Kohút, Z., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., & Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLIFE. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.33468.001Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S. & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution. Brain Research, 1118(1), 155–167.Google Scholar
Núñez-Peña, M.I. & Honrubia-Serrano, M.L. (2004). P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task. Cognitive Brain Research, 18(2), 130–141.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, 59(3), 494–522.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 507–526.Google Scholar
Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1402–1456.Google Scholar
Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 426–488.Google Scholar
Patel, A. D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 717–733.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82(4), 795–823.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407–428.Google Scholar
Roehm, D., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I., Frisch, S., & Haider, H. (2004). Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 15(3), 409–412.Google Scholar
Roll, M., Horne, M., & Lindgren, M. (2007). Object shift and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(6), 462–481.Google Scholar
Ruchkin, D. S., JohnsonJr., R., Grafman, J., Canoune, H., & Ritter, W. (1992). Distinctions and similarities among working memory processes: An event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(1), 53–66.Google Scholar
Sassenhagen, J. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2015). The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation. Cortex, 66, A3–A20.Google Scholar
Severens, E., Jansma, B. M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject–verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1228, 135–144.Google Scholar
Shao, J. & Neville, H. (1998). Analyzing semantic processing using event-related brain potentials. Newsletter of the Center for Research in Language, 11(5), 3–20.Google Scholar
Simson, R., Vaughan, H. G., & Ritter, W. (1977). The scalp topography of potentials in auditory and visual discrimination tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 42(4), 528–535.Google Scholar
Squires, N. K., Squires, K. C., & Hillyard, S. A. (1975). Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 38(4), 387–401.Google Scholar
Staab, J. (2007). Negation in context: Electrophysiological and behavioral investigations of negation effects in discourse processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K. & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120(2), 135–162.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245.Google Scholar
Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1965). Evoked potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science, 150(3700), 1187–1188.Google Scholar
Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1967). Information delivery and the sensory evoked potential. Science, 155(3768), 1436–1439.Google Scholar
Szewczyk, J. M. & Schriefers, H. (2013). Prediction in language comprehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence comprehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 297–324.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 277–293.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 367–382.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.Google Scholar
Toscano, J. C., McMurray, B., Dennhardt, J., & Luck, S. A. (2010). Continuous perception and graded categorization: Electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychological Science, 2(10), 1532–1540.Google Scholar
Ueno, M. & Garnsey, S. M. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 646–688.Google Scholar
Ueno, M. & Kluender, R. (2003). Event-related brain indices of scrambling in Japanese. Brain and Language, 86(2), 243–271.Google Scholar
Ueno, M. & Kluender, R. (2009). On the processing of Japanese wh-questions: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1290, 63–90.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more or less. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 79–96.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2002). The intractability of scaling scalp distributions to infer neuroelectric sources. Psychophysiology, 39(6), 791–808.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 158–179.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(2), 147–182.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event‐related brain potentials reflect discourse‐referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40(2), 235–248.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M. & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Bastiaansen, M. C., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2004). So who’s “he” anyway? Differential ERP and ERSP effects of referential success, ambiguity and failure during spoken language comprehension. Supplement to the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16.Google Scholar
van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181–1197.Google Scholar
van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. J., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 241–255.Google Scholar
Van Petten, C. & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19(1), 95–112.Google Scholar
Van Petten, C. & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190.Google Scholar
Verleger, R. (1990). P3-evoking wrong notes: Unexpected, awaiting, or arousing? International Journal of Neuroscience, 55(2–4), 171–179.Google Scholar
Vissers, C. Th. W. M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research, 1106(1), 150–163.Google Scholar
Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346(3), 165–168.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39(3), 483–508.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272–1288.Google Scholar
Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language, 107(2), 133–157.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y.-X. & Zhang, J.-T. (2008). Brain responses to agreement violations of Chinese grammatical aspect. NeuroReport, 19(10), 1039–1043.Google Scholar

References

Aarts, J. (1991). Intuition-based and observation-based grammars. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B., eds., English Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 56–74.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, D. (1965). Pseudo-procedures in Linguistics. In Abercrombie, D., ed., Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–119.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. (1978). NP preposing in Noun Phrases. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 12–21.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Atkins, S., Clear, J., & Ostler, N. (1992). Corpus design criteria. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.Google Scholar
Badiola, L., Delgado, R., Sande, A., & Stefanich, S. (2018). Code-switching attitudes and their effects on acceptability judgment tasks. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993a). Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 219–241.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993b). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257.Google Scholar
Bick, E. (1997). Turning a Dependency Treebank into a PSG-style Constituent Treebank. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06). Paris: European Language Resources Association, pp. 1961–1964.Google Scholar
Brants, T. (2000). TnT: A statistical part-of-speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 224–231.Google Scholar
Braze, D. (2002). Grammaticality, acceptability, and sentence processing: A psycholinguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2007). A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology, 11(1), 297–306.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bourma, G., Kraemer, I., & Zwarts, J., eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: KNAW, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ford, M. & Bresnan, J. (2010). Studying syntactic variation using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Krug, M. & Schlüter, J., eds., Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Francom, J. & Hulden, M. (2008). Parallel multi-theory annotation of syntactic structure. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Paris: European Language Resources Association, pp. 2339–2343.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 58–93.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 88–124.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125.Google Scholar
Halácsy, P., Kornai, A., & Oravecz, C. (2007). HunPos: An open source trigram tagger. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the ACL on Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions. Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 209–212.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2005). Variable vs. categorical effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses. Journal of English Linguistics, 33(3), 257–297.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2006). Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: The case of preposition placement in English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 165–195.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Arnon, I., Jaeger, F., Sag, I., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1), 48–87.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366–415.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1989). First Language Acquisition: Method, Description and Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klein, D. & Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 423–430.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Foundations of Language, 13(2), 251–265.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In McNair, L., Singer, K., Dolbrin, L., & Aucon, M., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2012). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, J. H., Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2016). Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 41(5), 1202–1241.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1991). The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B., eds., English Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 20–41.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703.Google Scholar
Manning, C. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In Bod, J. Hay, & Jannedy, , eds., Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 289–341.Google Scholar
Manning, C. & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (1993). The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), pp. 536–571.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. & Müller, S. (2009). Corpora and syntax. In Lüdeling, A. & Kytö, M., eds., Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 920–933.Google Scholar
Montes-Alcalá, C. (2000). Attitudes towards oral and written codeswitching in Spanish–English bilingual youths. In Roca, A., ed., Research on Spanish in the US. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. (2010). Building a corpus: What are the key considerations? In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 31–103.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. Z. (2001). A constructional approach to idioms and word formation. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Roland, D. & Jurafsky, D. (2000). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In Stevenson, S. & Merlo, P., eds., CUNY-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 325–345.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Hofmeister, P., & Snider, N. (2007). Processing complexity in subjacency violations: The Complex Noun Phrase Constraint. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. (1973). Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2(2), 83–98.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77.Google Scholar
Strunk, J. & Snider, N. (2013). Subclausal locality constraints on relative clause extraposition. In Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., & Walker, H., eds., Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–143.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115(11), 1481–1496.Google Scholar

References

Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 847–859.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2018). The autonomy of syntax. In Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H., Patel-Grosz, P., & Yang, C., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 153–176.Google Scholar
Badecker, W. & Lewis, R. (2007). A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: Agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval. Presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. & Brame, M. K. (1972). Global rules: A rejoinder. Language, 48(1), 51–75.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Weinberg, A. S. (1986). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31(2), 163–186.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(1), 99–127.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Ferreira, V. (2013). Syntactically speaking. In Ferreira, V., Goldrick, M., & Miozzo, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language Production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Levelt, W. J. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A., ed., Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 945–984.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45–93.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Nicol, J., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 330–346.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e282.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structure. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures (no. 9). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S., Ladusaw, W. A., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3(3), 239–282.Google Scholar
Cleland, A. A. & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 214–230.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. S. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., Oppenheim, G. M., & Kittredge, A. K. (2008). Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 583–608.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (1988). Planning and timing in sentence production: The syntax-to-phonology conversion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2000). Syntax in language production: An approach using tree-adjoining grammars. In Wheeldon, L., ed., Aspects of Language Production. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 291–330.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Engelhardt, P. E. (2006). Syntax and production. In M. Traxler & M. Gernsbacher, eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 61–91.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 263–278.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 379–398.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. & Slevc, L. R. (2007). Grammatical encoding. In Rueschemeyer, S.-A. & Gaskell, M. G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholiguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 453–470.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., Bock, K., Wilson, M. P., & Cohen, N. J. (2008). Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science, 19(9), 940–946.Google Scholar
Flett, S. (2006). A comparison of syntactic representation and processing in first and second language production. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., Bever, A., & Garrett, M. (1974). The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101(1), 173–216.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 371–404.Google Scholar
Frank, S. L., Bod, R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 279, 4522–4531.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. (1975). The analysis of passives. Language, 51, 384–405.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27–52.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2011). An Introduction to Language. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. H., ed., Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press, pp. 133–177.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1988). Processes in language production. In Newmeyer, F. J., ed., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 3: Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–96.Google Scholar
Gaston, P., Huang, N., & Phillips, C. (2017). The logic of syntactic priming and acceptability judgments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40,e282.Google Scholar
Gillespie, M. & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118(3), 377–397.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative Investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 544–569.Google Scholar
Gold, J. W., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., Becker, M., Čordalija, N., Kresić, M., et al. (2018). When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(3), 495–500.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1977). Judgments of syntactic acceptability and frequency. Studia Linguistica, 31(2), 83–105.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1980). Syntactic frequency and acceptability. In T. A. Perry, ed., Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 301–314.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11(4), 274–279.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 537–555.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, M. L., Ferreira, V. S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2015). Syntactic priming in American Sign Language. PloS One, 10(3), e0119611.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Kolk, H. H. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(2), 143–184.Google Scholar
Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 138–152.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N. (2010). Incremental sentence production: Observations from elicited speech errors in Japanese. In Yamashita, H., Hirose, Y., & Packard, J. L., eds., Processing and Producing Head-Final Structures. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 131–151.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Bresnan, J., et al. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 47, 29–130.Google Scholar
Karins, A. K. & Nagy, N. (1993). Developing an experimental basis for determining grammaticality. Penn Review of Linguistics, 17, 93–100.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2), 201–258.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14(2), 185–209.Google Scholar
Kim, C. (2006). Structural and thematic information in sentence production. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1968). Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. Language, 44, 374–378.Google Scholar
Kweon, S.-O. & Bley-Vroman, R. (2011). Acquisition of the constraints on wanna contraction by advanced second language learners: Universal grammar and imperfect knowledge. Second Language Research, 27(2), 207–228.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Global rules. Language, 627–639.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 226.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2014). The CHILDES project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, vol. II: The Database. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 429–445.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188–230.Google Scholar
Melinger, A. & Dobel, C. (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98(1), B11–B20.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 477–496.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & McKean, K. O. (1964). A chronometric study of some relations between sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(4), 297–308.Google Scholar
Momma, S. & Ferreira, V. S. (2019). Beyond linear order: The role of argument structure in speaking. Cognitive Psychology, 114, 101228.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., Buffinton, J., & Phillips, C. (2020). Syntactic category constrains lexical competition in speaking. Cognition, 197, 104183.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2016). The timing of verb selection in Japanese sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(5), 813.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2018). Unaccusativity in sentence production. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(1), 181–194.Google Scholar
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. (1973). The tongue slips into patterns. In Fromkin, V., ed., Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 144–156.Google Scholar
Pearl, L. & Sprouse, J. (2013). Computational models of acquisition for islands. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–131.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1968). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013). On the nature of island constraints ii: Language learning and innateness. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–158.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 11–47.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and language, 39(4), 633–651.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2002). Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 586–605.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Ferreira, V. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L., Morgan, A., Xiang, M., & Heestand, D. (2013). Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–359.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 633.Google Scholar
Ritchart, A., Goodall, G., & Garellek, M. (2016). Prosody and the that-trace effect: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 320–328.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Teruel, E., & Meinshausen, R.-M. (1998). Producing simple sentences: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 609–632.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (2016). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, J., Tamaoka, K., & Sakai, H. (2007). Syntactic priming effects on the processing of Japanese sentences with canonical and scrambled word orders. Cognitive Studies, 14(2), 173–191.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J. & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G. & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68(1), B13–B29.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115(11), 1481–1496.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Merchant, J. (2014). Ellipsis sites induce structural priming effects. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J., Bencini, G., Goldberg, A., & Snedeker, J. (2019). How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 193, 104045.Google Scholar
Zukowski, A. & Larson, J. (2009). Elicited production of relative clauses in children with Williams syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(1), 1–43.Google Scholar

References

Alexander, G. E., DeLong, M. R., & Strick, P. L. (1986). Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 9(1), 357–381.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1981). The role of subvocalisation in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 439–454.Google Scholar
Ben-Shachar, M., Hendler, T., Kahn, I., Ben-Bashat, D., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2003). The neural reality of syntactic transformations: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Psychological Science, 14(5), 433–440.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Weinberg, A. S. (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bhattasali, S., Fabre, M., Luh, W. M., Al Saied, H., Constant, M., Pallier, C., … & Hale, J. (2019). Localising memory retrieval and syntactic composition: an fMRI study of naturalistic language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(4), 491–510.Google Scholar
Binder, J. R. (2012). Task-induced deactivation and the “resting” state. Neuroimage, 62(2), 1086–1091.Google Scholar
Binder, J. R. (2017). Current controversies on Wernicke’s area and its role in language. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 17(8), 58.Google Scholar
Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–2796.Google Scholar
Binder, J. R., Frost, J. A., Hammeke, T. A., Bellgowan, P. S. F., Rao, S. M., & Cox, R. W. (1999). Conceptual processing during the conscious resting state: A functional MRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(1), 80–93.Google Scholar
Blank, I., Balewski, Z., Mahowald, K., & Fedorenko, E. (2016). Syntactic processing is distributed across the language system. Neuroimage, 127, 307–323.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2013). Biolinguistics: forays into human cognitive biology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 91, 1–28.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Reconciling time, space and function: A new dorsal–ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 125(1), 60–76.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2016). Naturalistic sentence comprehension in the brain. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(7), 299–313.Google Scholar
Brennan, J., Nir, Y., Hasson, U., Malach, R., Heeger, D. J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2012). Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during natural story listening. Brain and Language, 120(2), 163–173.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. R. & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe. Cognitive Science, 41, 1515–1531.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. R., Stabler, E. P., Van Wagenen, S. E., Luh, W. M., & Hale, J. T. (2016). Abstract linguistic structure correlates with temporal activity during naturalistic comprehension. Brain and Language, 157, 81–94.Google Scholar
Buchsbaum, B. R., Baldo, J., Okada, K., Berman, K. F., Dronkers, N., D’esposito, M., & Hickok, G. (2011). Conduction aphasia, sensory-motor integration, and phonological short-term memory – an aggregate analysis of lesion and fMRI data. Brain and Language, 119(3), 119–128.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., Waters, G., & Olivieri, A. (2000). Activation of Broca’s area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping, 9(2), 65–71.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1871). Through the Looking Glass: And What Alice Found There. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, vol. 11. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M., ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language (Current Studies in Linguistics, 36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.1–52.Google Scholar
Cooke, A., Zurif, E. B., DeVita, C., Alsop, D., Koenig, P., Detre, J., … & Grossman, M. (2002). Neural basis for sentence comprehension: Grammatical and short‐term memory components. Human Brain Mapping, 15(2), 80–94.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers. In Dowty, D., Kartunnen, D., & Zwicky, A. M., eds., Natural Language Parsing: Psycholinguistics, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 94–129.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2006). The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(9), 413–418.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. (1992). Aphasia. New England Journal of Medicine, 326(8), 531–539.Google Scholar
Den Ouden, B., Saur, D., Mader, W., Schelter, B., Lukic, S., Wali, E., … & Thompson, C. K. (2012). Network modulation during complex syntactic processing. Neuroimage, 59(1), 815–823.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Behr, M. K., & Kanwisher, N. (2011). Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(39), 16428–16433.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Hsieh, P. J., Nieto-Castañón, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Kanwisher, N. (2010). New method for fMRI investigations of language: Defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(2), 1177–1194.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Nieto-Castanon, A., & Kanwisher, N. (2012). Lexical and syntactic representations in the brain: An fMRI investigation with multi-voxel pattern analyses. Neuropsychologia, 50(4), 499–513.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Scott, T. L., Brunner, P., Coon, W. G., Pritchett, B., Schalk, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2016). Neural correlate of the construction of sentence meaning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(41), E6256–E6262.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., Lohmann, G., Von Cramon, D. Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Revisiting the role of Broca’s area in sentence processing: syntactic integration versus syntactic working memory. Human Brain Mapping, 24(2), 79–91.Google Scholar
Frank, R. (2004). Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frank, S. L. & Bod, R. (2011). Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science, 22, 829–834.Google Scholar
Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Flores D’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R. C., Moro, A., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(10), 713.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I. D., von Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Processing linguistic complexity and grammaticality in the left frontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 1709–1717.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Meyer, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical information. Brain and Language, 74(2), 289–300.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Price, C. J., Fletcher, P., Moore, C., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Dolan, R. J. (1996). The trouble with cognitive subtraction. Neuroimage, 4(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Tily, H., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The processing complexity of English relative clauses. Language Down the Garden Path: The Cognitive and Biological Basis for Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goucha, T. & Friederici, A. D. (2015). The language skeleton after dissecting meaning: a functional segregation within Broca’s Area. Neuroimage, 114, 294–302.Google Scholar
Goucha, T., Zaccarella, E., & Friederici, A. D. (2017). A revival of the Homo loquens as a builder of labeled structures: Neurocognitive considerations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(Pt B).Google Scholar
Grewe, T., Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Wiese, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The emergence of the unmarked: A new perspective on the language-specific function of Broca’s area. Human Brain Mapping, 26, 178–190.Google Scholar
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., & Martin, A. (2006). Repetition and the brain: Neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 14–23.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. & Santi, A. (2008). The battle for Broca’s region. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(12), 474–480.Google Scholar
Halgren, E., Dhond, R. P., Christensen, N., Van Petten, C., Marinkovic, K., Lewine, J. D., & Dale, A. M. (2002). N400-like magnetoencephalography responses modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences. Neuroimage, 17(3), 1101–1116.Google Scholar
Haxby, J. V. (2012). Multivariate pattern analysis of fMRI: The early beginnings. Neuroimage, 62(2), 852–855.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. (2000). The left frontal convolution plays no special role in syntactic comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 35–36.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. & Poeppel, D. (2004). Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92(1–2), 67–99.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 393.Google Scholar
Humphries, C., Love, T., Swinney, D., & Hickok, G. (2005). Response of anterior temporal cortex to syntactic and prosodic manipulations during sentence processing. Human Brain Mapping, 26(2), 128–138.Google Scholar
Huth, A. G., de Heer, W. A., Griffiths, T. L., Theunissen, F. E., & Gallant, J. L. (2016). Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature, 532(7600), 453.Google Scholar
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, T. A., Eddy, W. F., & Thulborn, K. R. (1996). Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science, 274(5284), 114–116.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. & Swaab, T. Y. (2002). The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8), 350–356.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 384–409.Google Scholar
Leonard, M. K., Ramirez, N. F., Torres, C., Travis, K. E., Hatrak, M., Mayberry, R. I., & Halgren, E. (2012). Signed words in the congenitally deaf evoke typical late lexicosemantic responses with no early visual responses in left superior temporal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(28), 9700–9705.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.Google Scholar
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T., & Oeltermann, A. (2001). Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal. Nature, 412(6843), 150.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Woll, B., Brammer, M. J., Giampietro, V., David, A. S., … & McGuire, P. K. (2006). Lexical and sentential processing in British Sign Language. Human Brain Mapping, 27(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
Makuuchi, M., Bahlmann, J., Anwander, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Segregating the core computational faculty of human language from working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(20), 8362–8367.Google Scholar
Makuuchi, M., Grodzinsky, Y., Amunts, K., Santi, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2012). Processing noncanonical sentences in Broca’s region: Reflections of movement distance and type. Cerebral Cortex, 23(3), 694–702.Google Scholar
Matchin, W. (2018). A neuronal retuning hypothesis of sentence-specificity in Broca’s area. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1682–1694.Google Scholar
Matchin, W., Brodbeck, C., Hammerly, C., & Lau, E. (2019). The temporal dynamics of structure and content in sentence comprehension: Evidence from fMRI-constrained MEG. Human Brain Mapping, 40(2), 663–678.Google Scholar
Matchin, W., Hammerly, C., & Lau, E. (2017). The role of the IFG and pSTS in syntactic prediction: Evidence from a parametric study of hierarchical structure in fMRI. Cortex, 88, 106–123.Google Scholar
Matchin, W. & Hickok, G. (2020). The cortical organization of syntax. Cerebral Cortex, 30(3), 1481–1498.Google Scholar
Matchin, W., Sprouse, J., & Hickok, G. (2014). A structural distance effect for backward anaphora in Broca’s area: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 138, 1–11.Google Scholar
Mazoyer, B. M., Tzourio, N., Frak, V., Syrota, A., Murayama, N., Levrier, O., … & Mehler, J. (1993). The cortical representation of speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(4), 467–479.Google Scholar
Meyer, L. & Friederici, A. D. (2016). Neural systems underlying the processing of complex sentences. In Hickok, G. & Small, S. A., eds., The Neurobiology of Language. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 597–606.Google Scholar
Meyer, L., Grigutsch, M., Schmuck, N., Gaston, P., & Friederici, A. D. (2015). Frontal–posterior theta oscillations reflect memory retrieval during sentence comprehension. Cortex, 71, 205–218.Google Scholar
Meyer, L., Obleser, J., Anwander, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2012). Linking ordering in Broca’s area to storage in left temporo-parietal regions: The case of sentence processing. Neuroimage, 62(3), 1987–1998.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. J., El Karoui, I., Giber, K., Yang, X., Cohen, L., Koopman, H., … & Dehaene, S. (2017). Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(18), E3669–E3678.Google Scholar
Obleser, J., Meyer, L., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Dynamic assignment of neural resources in auditory comprehension of complex sentences. Neuroimage, 56(4), 2310–2320.Google Scholar
Pallier, C., Devauchelle, A. D., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(6), 2522–2527.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. & Embick, D. (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 103–18.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59–63.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A. (2011). Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data: From reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron, 72(5), 692–697.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2015). Composition of complex meaning: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the left anterior temporal lobe. In G. Hickok & S. A. Small, eds., Neurobiology of Language. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 621–631.Google Scholar
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676–682.Google Scholar
Rauschecker, J. P. & Scott, S. K. (2009). Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 12(6), 718.Google Scholar
Roder, B., Stock, O., Neville, H., Bien, S., & Rosler, F. (2002). Brain activation modulated by the comprehension of normal and pseudo-word sentences of different processing demands: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroimage, 15, 1003–1014.Google Scholar
Rogalsky, C. & Hickok, G. (2008). Selective attention to semantic and syntactic features modulates sentence processing networks in anterior temporal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 19(4), 786–796.Google Scholar
Rogalsky, C. & Hickok, G. (2011). The role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1664–1680.Google Scholar
Rogalsky, C., Matchin, W., & Hickok, G. (2008). Broca’s area, sentence comprehension, and working memory: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2, 14.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Saito, M. (1989). Scrambling as semantically vacuous A-movement. In Baltin &, M. Kroch, A., eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.Google Scholar
Santi, A. & Grodzinsky, Y. (2007). Working memory and syntax interact in Broca’s area. Neuroimage, 37(1), 8–17.Google Scholar
Santi, A. & Grodzinsky, Y. (2010). fMRI adaptation dissociates syntactic complexity dimensions. Neuroimage, 51, 1285–1293.Google Scholar
Shetreet, E. & Friedmann, N. (2012). Stretched, jumped, and fell: An fMRI investigation of reflexive verbs and other intransitives. Neuroimage, 60(3), 1800–1806.Google Scholar
Shetreet, E. & Friedmann, N. (2014). The processing of different syntactic structures: fMRI investigation of the linguistic distinction between wh-movement and verb movement. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 27(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., & Hadar, U. (2010). Cortical representation of verbs with optional complements: The theoretical contribution of fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 31(5), 770–785.Google Scholar
Stabler, E. P. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In Retoré, C., ed., Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A., Broere, C. A., Paans, A. M., Wijers, A. A., Mulder, G., Vaalburg, W., & Zwarts, F. (1998). Localizing components of a complex task: sentence processing and working memory. Neuroreport, 9(13), 2995–2999.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Rauch, S. (1996). Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language, 52(3), 452–473.Google Scholar
Tremblay, P. & Dick, A. S. (2016). Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language neurobiology. Brain and Language, 162, 60–71.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 128.Google Scholar
Wehbe, L., Murphy, B., Talukdar, P., Fyshe, A., Ramdas, A., & Mitchell, T. (2014). Simultaneously uncovering the patterns of brain regions involved in different story reading subprocesses. PloS One, 9(11), e112575.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. M., Bautista, A., & McCarron, A. (2018). Convergence of spoken and written language processing in the superior temporal sulcus. NeuroImage, 171, 62–74.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. M., DeMarco, A. T., Henry, M. L., Gesierich, B., Babiak, M., Mandelli, M. L., Miller, B. L., & Gorno-Tempini, M. L. (2014). What role does the anterior temporal lobe play in sentence-level processing? Neural correlates of syntactic processing in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(5), 970–985.Google Scholar
Zaccarella, E., Meyer, L., Makuuchi, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2017). Building by syntax: The neural basis of minimal linguistic structures. Cerebral Cortex, 27(1), 411–421.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×