|
[0] Arnon, Inbal, Bruno Estigarribia, Philip
Hofmeister, T. Florian Jaeger, Jeanette Pettibone, Ivan
A. Sag, and Neal Snider. Rethinking Superiority effects:
A processing model. Poster presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing
Conference, University of Arizona. (.ppt file)
(.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[1] Clifton, C. J., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (in pres)
Amnestying Superiority Violations: Processing Multiple Questions.
Linguistic Inquiry.
(.doc file)
| back TOP |
[2] Cowart, W. (1997) Experimental Syntax: Applying objective
methods to sentence judgements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
(In course readings box) | back TOP |
[2a] Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (in press) What's what? In
C. F. Gisbert Fanselow, Matthias Schlesewsky, Ralf Vogel (ed.)
Gradience in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. (.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[3] Fanselow, G., & Frisch, S. (1999?) Effects of Processing
Difficulty on Judgments of Acceptability. | back TOP |
[4] Featherston, S. (2004) The Decathlon model of Empirical
Syntax.Unpublished manuscript. | back TOP |
[5] Featherston, S. (2005) Magnitude estimation and what it can
do for your syntax: some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115,
1525--1550. | back TOP |
[6] Featherston, S. (2005) Universals and grammaticality:
Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43(4). | back TOP |
Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E. & Rohde, D. (in press) The Nature of Working
Memory Capacity in Sentence Comprehension: Evidence Against Domain-Specific
Working Memory Resources. Journal of Memory and Language. | back TOP |
Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E. & Rohde, D. (submitted) Shared processing
resources for language and math. Manuscript submitted for publication,
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT. | back TOP |
[x] Fox, John (2002) Linear Mixed Models:
Appendix to An R and S-PLUS Companion to Applied Regression.
(pdf file) | back TOP |
[7] Gibson, E. (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of
syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76. | back TOP |
[7a] Gibson, E. (2000) The Dependency Locality theory: A
Distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In (pp. 95-126). (.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[7b] Gibson, E. (2003) Sentence Comprehension, Linguistic Complexity in.
(.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[7c] Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1998) Constraints in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(7), 262-268.
(.pdf file) | back TOP |
[7d] Gordon, P. C., Randall, H., & Johnson, M. (2001) Memory
Inference During Language Processing. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411-1423.
(.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[7e] Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005) Consequences of the
Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity. Cognitive
science, 29(2), 30. (.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[8] Hawkins, J. A. (1994) A Performance Theory of Order and
Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | back TOP |
[9] Hawkins, J. A. (2001) Why are categories adjacent? Journal of
Linguistics, 37, 1-34. | back TOP |
[10] Hawkins, J. A. (2004) Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. | back TOP |
[7d] Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003) Processing relative clauses
in Chinese. Cognition, 90(1), 3-27.
(.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[11] Keller, F. (1999) Review of Carson T. Schuetze's The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality
Judgments and Linguistic Methodology, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8: 1, 114--121, 1999.
(.pdf file)
Excellent short summary of Schütze's master thesis on factors influencing acceptability judgments. | back TOP |
[12] Keller, F. (1996) How Do Humans Deal with Ungrammatical
Input? Experimental Evidence and Computational Modelling. In D.
Gibbon (Ed.), Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology:
Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, Bielefeld, October 1996.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. | back TOP |
[13] Keller, F. (2000) Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and
Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. University of
Edinburgh. | back TOP |
[14] Keller, F., & Sorace, A. (2005) Gradience in Linguistic
Data. Lingua, 115(11), 1497-1524. | back TOP |
[15] Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004) The relationship
between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study
into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In S.
Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical,
Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton De
Gruyter. | back TOP |
[16] Kluender, R. (1998) On the distinction between strong and
weak islands: A processing perspective. In P. Culicover & L.
McNally (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 29: The limits of syntax (pp.
241-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. | back TOP |
[17] Kluender, R. (2004) Are Subject Islands Subject to a
Processing Account? Paper presented at the WCCFL 23 Proceedings.
(.doc file)
| back TOP |
[17a] Labov, William (1996) When Intuitions Fail.
In L. McNair, K. Singer, L. Dolbrin and M. Aucon (eds.),
Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics
Chicago Linguistic Society 32: 77--106.
(.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[17b]Phillips, Colin. 1998 Linguistics and Psycholinguistics:
Competence and Performance Systems. Class Notes from The Organization
of Language (U. of Delaware). (.pdf file) | back TOP |
[18] Reips, U.-D. (2002) Standards for Internet-based
experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49(4), 243-256.
(.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[19] Rohdenburg, G. (1996) Cognitive complexity and increased
grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2),
149-182. | back TOP |
[20] Rohdenburg, G. (1998) Clausal complementation and cognitive
complexity in English. Paper presented at the Anglistentag, Erfurt,
Germany. | back TOP |
[21] Rohdenburg, G. (2002) Processing complexity and the variable
use of prepositions in English. In C. H. & G. Radden (Eds.),
Perspectives on Prepositions (pp. 79-100). Tübingen.
| back TOP |
[21a] Sag, Ivan A., Inbal Arnon, Bruno
Estigarribia, Philip Hofmeister, T. Florian
Jaeger, Jeanette Pettibone, and Neal
Snider. Processing Accounts for Superiority Effects.
(.pdf
file). Under Review. | back TOP |
[22] Schuetze, C. (1996) The Empirical Base of Linguistics:
Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. In course readings box.
| back TOP |
Sedivy, J.C. (2002) Invoking Discourse-Based Contrast Sets and Resolving
Syntactic Ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 341-370
| back TOP |
Sedivy, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., Chambers, G.C. & Carlson, G.N. (1999)
Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual
representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.
| back TOP |
Spivey-Knowlton, M. & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1994) Referential context and
syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., L. Frazier, and K. Rayner
(Eds.), Perspectives in Sentence Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum, 415-439.
| back TOP |
[23] Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., &
Sedivy, J. C. (1995) Integration of visual and linguistic
information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217),
1632-1634. (.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[24] Trueswell, J. C. (1996) The role of lexical frequency in
syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35,
566-585. (.pdf file)
| back TOP |
[25] Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey,
S. M. (1994) Semantic Influences on Parsing: The use of thematic
role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory
and Language, 33, 285-318. (.pdf file)
| back TOP |