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-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:30:20.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Acceptability, Grammar, and Processing

from Part I - General Issues in Acceptability Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

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

Summary

Acceptability and grammaticality are clearly closely related, but the relationship is not always straightforward. Sometimes, sentences that are thought to be ungrammatical are perceived as acceptable, leading to an illusion of grammaticality, or grammatical sentences are perceived as unacceptable, leading to an illusion of ungrammaticality. Such cases occur with morphological ambiguity, attachment ambiguity, agreement attraction, and negative polarity items, among others. Processing difficulty is one of the factors that can lower the acceptability of a grammatical sentence, as may be seen in the effects of constituent length and dependency length on acceptability. In some cases, such as superiority violations and island violations, it has been argued that these may actually be grammatical, but unacceptable, though this is the topic of much ongoing research involving cross-linguistic work and studies on repeated exposure (satiation) and memory capacity. Having better models of acceptability and better ways of directly measuring grammaticality would be desirable.

Keywords

acceptabilitygrammaticalityattachment ambiguitycenter embeddingagreement attractiongradiencesuperiorityislandssatiation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 118 - 153
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

Abeillé, A., Hemforth, B., Winckel, E., & Gibson, E. (2018). A construction-conflict explanation of the subject-island constraint. Poster presented at the 31st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. C. (2012). Agreement, attraction and architectural opportunism. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 257–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldosari, S. (2015). The role of individual differences in the acceptability of island violations in native and non-native speakers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.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.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 55–93.Google Scholar
Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Losongo, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heavyness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., Snider, N., Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., & Sag, I. (2012). Cross-linguistic variation in a processing account: The case of multiple wh-questions. In Houser, M. J. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
Arregui, A., Clifton, C., Frazier, L. & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 232–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, E., Apple, A., Rawlins, K., & Omaki, A. (2016). Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badecker, W. & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 748–769.Google ScholarPubMed
Bader, M. (2016). The Limited Role of Number of Nested Syntactic Dependencies in Accounting for Processing Cost: Evidence from German Simplex and Complex Verbal Clusters. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, M. & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and Linking in Language Comprehension. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, M., Häussler, J., & Schmid, T. (2013). Constraints on intra- and extraposition. In Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., & Walker, H., eds., Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2001). Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua, 111, 465–514.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., Schmid, T., & Bader, M. (2005). Clause union and clausal position. In Den Dikken, M., ed., The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–142.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1932). Deutsche Syntax, vol. IV: Wortstellung Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effects of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R., ed., Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 279–362.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1976). The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Bever, T., Katz, J., & Langendoen, D., eds., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York: Crowell, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
Charnavel, I. & Sportiche, D. (2016). Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry, 47, 35–87.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. & Dery, J. (2014). Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? In Santana-La Barge, R., ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. & Dery, J. (2018). Frequency effects in subject islands. Journal of Linguistics, 55, 1–47.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955/1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. (2010). Syntactic reconstruction and reanalysis, semantic dead ends, and prefrontal cortex. Brain and Cognition, 73(1), 41–50.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. (2016). The dead ends of language: The (mis)interpretation of a grammatical illusion. In Vikner, S., Jørgensen, H., & van Gelderen, E., eds., Let Us Have Articles Betwixt Us: Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood. Aarhus: Dept. of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University, pp. 129–160.Google Scholar
Christensen, K., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. (2013a). Escape from the Island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, K., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. (2013b). The processing of syntactic islands: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 239–251.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157–205.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. & Macdonald, M. (1998). Processing of recursive sentence structure: Testing predictions from a connectionist model. Cognition, 45, 225–255.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Williams, C., Zacks, R., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 205–238.Google Scholar
Clausen, D. (2010). Processing factors influencing acceptability in extractions from complex subjects. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clausen, D. (2011). Informativity and acceptability of complex subject islands. Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Stanford.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 51–68.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11(1), 11–39.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Using Syntactic Satiation to Investigate Subject Islands. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A., eds., Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S. (2009). On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects. In Gerdts, D., Moore, J., & Polinsky, M., eds., Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M., Christiansen, M. H., & Petersson, K. M. (2011). Learning recursion: Multiple nested and crossed dependencies. Biolinguistics, 5, 010–035.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.Google Scholar
Do, M. & Kaiser, E. (2017). A closer look: Investigating the mechanisms of syntactic satiation. In Kaplan, A. et al. eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar
Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: when negation comes through the backdoor. In Kepser, S. & Reis, M., eds., Linguistic Evidence – Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, M. K., Cooper Cutting, J., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdmann, P. (1988). On the principle of “weight” in English. In Duncan-Rose, C. & Vennemann, T., eds., On Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 325–339.Google Scholar
Erteshik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Féry, C. (2008): Missing superiority effects: Long movement in German (and other languages). In Witkos, J. & Fanselow, G., eds., Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 67–87.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., & Schlesewsky, M., eds., Gradience in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Vogel, R., & Weskott, T. (2011). Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German. Linguistics, 49, 657–683.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43, 667–711.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2008). Syntactic parallelism as an account of superiority effects: Empirical investigations in English and Russian. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Henderson, J. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Inoue, A. (2000). Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D., Nickels, S., & Schott, E. (2017). Center embedded sentences: What is pronouncable is comprehensible. In de Almeida, R. & Gleitman, L., eds., Minds on Language and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E. (2010). Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 35–74.Google Scholar
Francis, E. & Michaelis, L. (2016). When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, 9, 332–370.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francom, J. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Frank, S. & Ernst, P. (2018). Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1–13.Google Scholar
Frank, S., Trompenaars, T., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic differences in processing double-embedded relative clauses: Working-memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science, 40(3), 554–578.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A., eds., Natural Language Processing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–189.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M., ed., Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 559–586.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Harris, J. (2014). Standing alone with prosodic help. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29(4), 459–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., & Portner, P., eds. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1660–1712.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, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.Google Scholar
Gieselman, S, Kluender, R., & Caponigro, I. (2013). Isolating processing factors in negative island contexts. In Fainleib, Y., LaCara, N., & Park, Y., eds., Proceedings of NELS 41. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 233–246.Google Scholar
Gillespie, M. & Pearlmutter, N. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118, 377–397.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., Tsiwah, F., & Saah, K. (2017). Island constraints are not the result of sentence processing. Proceedings the Linguistic Society of America, 2(15), 1–10.Google Scholar
Greco, C., Marelli, M., & Haegeman, L. (2017). External syntax and the cumulative effect in subject sub-extraction: An experimental evaluation. The Linguistic Review, 34, 479–531.Google Scholar
Grillo, N., Aguilar, A., Roberts, L., Santi, A., & Turco, G. (2018). Prosody of classic garden path sentences: The horse raced faster when embedded. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. (2018). Sättigungseffekte von multiplen W-Sätzen: Einfluss der Superiorität und Belebtheit. BSc thesis, Potsdam.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976) Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–426.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., Anton-Mendez, I., & Van Zee, M. (2001). Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 546–572.Google Scholar
Häussler, J. & Bader, M. (2015). An interference account of the missing VP effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 766.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Fanselow, G. Eythórsson, T., Šimik, R., & Vicente, L. (2019). Crossing movement paths: Multiple wh-questions in seven languages. Unpublished manuscript, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Grant, M., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2015). Superiority in English and German: Cross-language grammatical differences? Syntax, 18, 235–265.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B. & Konieczny, L. (2003). Proximity in agreement errors. In Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D., eds., The 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 557–562.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Seelig, H., & Walter, M. (2000). Case matching and relative clause attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 81–88.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Culicover, P., & Winkler, S. (2015). Effects of processing on the acceptability of frozen extraposed constituents. Syntax, 184, 464–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, P, Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, S., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 48–87.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. (2012). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88(2), 390–400.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P, Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. (2013). Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Islands Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–63.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
Jung, D.-H, Kim, Y., & Kim, J.-S. (2017). Island effects in Korean Scrambling: An experimental study. Unpublished manuscript, Korea University, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311678736_Island_Effects_in_Korean_Scrambling_An_Experimental_StudyGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject–verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165–193.Google Scholar
Karlson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2), 365–392.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. (2011). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In Cathcart, C. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 140–154.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2011). Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English? Poster presented at the CUNY 2011 Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Keller, F, (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(2), 521–547.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in Native and Heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134.Google Scholar
Kim, C., Kobele, G., Runner, J., & Hale, J. (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
Kjelgaard, M. & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 153–194.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. & Katz, J., eds., The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 246–323.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 627–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konieczny, L. & Döring, P. (2003). Anticipation of clause-final heads: Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Proceedings of ICCS/ASCS, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar
Konietzko, A., Winkler, S., & Culicover, P. (2018). Heavy NP Shift does not cause Freezing. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63(3), 454–464.Google Scholar
Krems, J. (1984). Erwartungsgeleitete Sprachverarbeitung. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Robinson, J.. (1972). Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 463–87.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(1), 70. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.280Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar
Levy, R. & Keller, F. (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 199–222.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1–45.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387.Google Scholar
Luka, B. & Barsalou, L. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension, Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 436–459.Google Scholar
Marks, L. (1967). Judgments of grammaticalness of some English sentences and semi-sentences. American Journal of Psychology, 80, 196–204.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Wayne, C. (1999). Experimental evidence for a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition, 70, B15–B24.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. (2004). Syntax der Ergänzungsfrage: Empirische Untersuchungen am Russischen, Polnischen und Tschechischen. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Michel, D. & Goodall, G. (2013). Finiteness and the nature of island constraints In N. Goto, K. Otaki, A. Sato, & K. Takita, eds., Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX 2012: The Main Session, pp. 187–197.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In Luce, D. & Galanter, B., eds., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. II. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Isard, S. (1964). Free recall of self embedded English sentences. Information and Control, 7, 292–303.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). Syntactic judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 406–423.Google Scholar
Nagata, H. (1990). Speaker’s sensitivity to rule violations in sentences. Psychologia, 33, 179–184.Google Scholar
Nakatani, K. & Gibson, E. (2010). An on-line study of Japanese nesting complexity. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 94–112.Google Scholar
Novick, J., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. (2014). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2016). Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 329.Google Scholar
Patson, N. & Husband, E. M. (2016). Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 950–971.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407–428.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(2), 261–303.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1998). On the limits of syntax, with reference to Left-Dislocation and Topicalization. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). New York: Academic Press, pp. 281–302.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4), 657–720.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1974). Three batons for cognitive psychology. In Weimer, W. & Palermo, D., eds., Cognition and the Symbolic Processes. Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1984). Inner islands. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 258–265.Google Scholar
Sloggett, S. (2017). When errors aren’t: How comprehenders selectively violate Binding theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amherst.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 575–582.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007a). A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007b). Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1, 118–129.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2008). The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 686–694.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14(2), 179–203.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staum Casasanto, L. & Sag, I. (2008). The advantage of the ungrammatical. In Love, B. C., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M., eds., Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Staum Casasanto, L., Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. (2010). Understanding acceptability judgments: Additivity and working memory effects. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for online gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1(3), 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(3), 542–562.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 355–370.Google Scholar
Tabor, W. & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431–450.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
Thornton, R., MacDonald, M., & Arnold, J. (2000). The concomitant effects of phrase length and informational content in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 195–203.Google Scholar
Trotzke, A., Bader, M., & Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics, 7, 1–34.Google Scholar
Vandierendonck, A., Loncke, M., Hartsuiker, R., & Desmet, T. (2018). The role of executive control in resolving grammatical number conflict in sentence comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 759–778.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S. (2002). Working memory in sentence comprehension: Processing Hindi center embeddings. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S. & Lewis, R. (2006). Argument–head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82, 767–794.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., & Kern, S. (2010). Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 533–567.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. & Watson, D. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 905–945.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1997), Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B., eds., Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 119–154.Google Scholar
Waters, G. & Caplan, D. (1996). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 24, 342–355.Google Scholar
Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 543–583.Google Scholar
Weskott, T. (2003). Information structure as a processing guide. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Weskott, T., Hörnig, R., Fanselow, G., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Contextual licensing of marked OVS word order in German. Linguistische Berichte, 225, 3–18.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Widmann, C. (2005). Factors at play in determining the acceptability of sentential subjects in English: The role of constituent relative weight. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Wierzba, M. & Fanselow, G. (2020). Factors influencing the acceptability of object fronting in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 23, 77–124.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2006). Testing the strength of the spurious licensing effect for negative polarity items. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing (New York).Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: Erp evidence. Brain and Language, 108(1), 40–55.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2013). Dependency–dependent interference: NPI interference, agreement attraction, and global pragmatic inferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 708.Google Scholar
Yngve, H. T. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444–466.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 761–770.Google Scholar
Zervakis, J. & Mazuka, R. (2013). Effect of repeated evaluation and repeated exposure on acceptability ratings of sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 505–525.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
×