[HOME | Schedule]

References

  • Acceptability-based work on WH-islands [1, 5, 6, 17]
  • General:
    • Acceptability Elicitation [2, 11-14, 18, 22] (the Keller 1996 paper is short and contains a lot of the ideas he develops in his thesis 4 years later)
    • Acceptability and Corpus Frequency [4, 15] plus a lot of work in the usage-based tradition
    • Acceptability and Processing Difficulty [3, 7, 10] + more of Kluender's work, and more work by Fanselow
    • The relation between Grammar and Performance [4, 8-10, 13, 16, 19-21] + work by Celia Jakubowicz (or whatever)
[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Unpublished manuscript.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)
    Summary
    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