Commentary published In: Epistemological issue with keynote article “The illusion of language acquisition” by William O’Grady
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3:3] 2013
► pp. 341–344
Commentary
Whose ease of processing?
Published online: 16 September 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.3.12sed
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.3.12sed
References (11)
Arnold, J.E., Wasow, T., Asudeh, A., & Alrenga, P. (2004). Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory and Language, 511, 55–70.
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, 541, 541–553.
Ferreira, V.S. (2008). Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. 491, 209–246.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J.D. (1978). The sausage-machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 61, 291–325.
Gordon, P.C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W.H. (2002). Memory load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 131, 425–430.
Han, C., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifiers scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 381, 1–48.
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 991, 122–149.
MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 1011, 676–703.
