SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (in press). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language
  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Available at: http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/. Accessed June 1, 2012.
  • Baudiffier, V., Caplan, D., Gaonach, D., & Chesnet, D. (2011). The effect of noun animacy on the processing of unambiguous sentences: Evidence from French relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(10), 18961905.
  • Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Vasishth, S., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 301349.
  • 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, 1992.
  • Collins, M. (1996). A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of ACL, Santa Cruz.
  • Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193210.
  • Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2006). The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 541553.
  • Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. E. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348368.
  • Ferrer i Cancho, R. (2006). Why do syntactic links not cross? Europhysics Letters, 76, 12281235.
  • Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519559.
  • Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161187.
  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 176.
  • Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gibson, E., Tily, H., & Fedorenko, E. (in press). The processing complexity of English relative clauses.
  • Gibson, E., & Wu, I. (2012). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes.
  • Gildea, D., & Temperley, D. (2009). Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science, 34, 286310.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27(6), 14111423.
  • Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97114.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425430.
    Direct Link:
  • Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261290.
  • Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of NAACL, 2, 159166.
  • Hawkins, J. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hofmeister, P. (2011). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 376405.
  • Holmes, V. M., & O'Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417430.
  • Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90, 327.
  • Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2003). Relative clause extraction complexity in Japanese. Poster presented at the 16th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434446.
  • Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processing in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228238.
  • Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 6399.
  • King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580602.
  • Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29-6, 627645.
  • Konieczny, L., & Döring, P. (2003). Anticipation of clause-final heads: Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Proceedings of ICCS/ASCS.
  • Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In D. Baumer, D. Montero & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 25), (pp. 114). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  • Kwon, N., Gordon, P. C., Lee, Y., & Kluender, R. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86, 546582.
  • Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 11261177.
  • Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (in press). The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language
  • Levy, R., & Keller, F. (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 199222.
  • Lewis, R., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447454.
  • Lin, C. J. C., & Bever, T. G. (2006). Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In D. Baumer, D. Montero & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL 25) (pp. 254260). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  • Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 5068.
  • Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466490.
  • McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 6791.
  • Mecklinger, K., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477494.
  • Miyamoto, E., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 342355). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  • O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). Asubject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433448.
  • Park, Y. A., & Levy, R. (2009). Minimal-length linearizations for mildly context-sensitive dependency trees. Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) conference.
  • Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 123.
  • R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  • Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499520.
  • Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 7186.
  • Temperley, D. (2007). Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition, 105, 300333.
  • Traxler, M., Morris, R., & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 6990.
  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285318.
  • Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 646688.
  • Van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285316.
  • Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2007). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 157166.
  • Vasishth, S., & Drenhaus, H. (2011). Locality in German. Dialogue and Discourse, 1, 5982.
  • Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82(4), 767794.
  • Vasishth, S., Shaher, R., Logacev, P., Engelmann, F., & Srinivasan, N. (in press). The role of clefting, word order and given-new ordering: Evidence from Hindi. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, 4(2).
  • Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79112.