Article published In: Epistemological issue with keynote article “The role of language processing in language acquisition” by Colin Phillips and Lara Ehrenhofer
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4] 2015
► pp. 409–453
The role of language processing in language acquisition
Colin Phillips | Department of Linguistics, Maryland Language Science Center, University of Maryland
Lara Ehrenhofer | Department of Linguistics, Maryland Language Science Center, University of Maryland
Published online: 31 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi
Language processing research is changing in two ways that should make it more relevant to the study of grammatical learning. First, grammatical phenomena are re-entering the psycholinguistic fray, and we have learned a lot in recent years about the real-time deployment of grammatical knowledge. Second, psycholinguistics is reaching more diverse populations, leading to much research on language processing in child and adult learners. We discuss three ways that language processing can be used to understand language acquisition. Level 1 approaches (“Processing in learners”) explore well-known phenomena from the adult psycholinguistic literature and document how they play out in learner populations (child learners, adult learners, bilinguals). Level 2 approaches (“Learning effects as processing effects”) use insights from adult psycholinguistics to understand the language proficiency of learners. We argue that a rich body of findings that have been attributed to the grammatical development of anaphora should instead be attributed to limitations in the learner’s language processing system. Level 3 approaches (“Explaining learning via processing”) use language processing to understand what it takes to successfully master the grammar of a language, and why different learner groups are more or less successful. We examine whether language processing may explain why some grammatical phenomena are mastered late in children but not in adult learners. We discuss the idea that children’s language learning prowess is directly caused by their processing limitations (‘less is more’: Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 141, 11–28. ). We conclude that the idea is unlikely to be correct in its original form, but that a variant of the idea has some promise (‘less is eventually more’). We lay out key research questions that need to be addressed in order to resolve the issues addressed in the paper.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Language processing essentials for learners
- 2.1Preliminaries: What we’re trying to explain
- 2.2Accurate parsing
- 2.3Reanalysis
- 2.4Prediction
- 2.5Fast and slow predictions
- 2.6Learning relevance: Input, intake, and missed opportunities
- 3.Level 1 accounts: Processing in learners
- 3.1Analysis and reanalysis in children
- 3.2Analysis and reanalysis in L2ers
- 3.3Prediction in children
- 3.4Prediction in L2ers
- 3.5Summary
- 4.Level 2 accounts: Learning effects as processing effects
- 4.1Starting point: Universal vs. language-specific constraints on backwards anaphora
- 4.2Principle B (pronouns) in children
- 4.3Principle C effects in adult parsing
- 4.4Principle A (local reflexives)
- 4.5Principle B (pronouns) in adults
- 4.6Russian Backwards Anaphora (again)
- 4.7Additional antecedent effects in reconstruction (reflexives)
- 4.8Summary: Adult on-line studies reveal the source of child errors
- 5.Level 3 accounts: Explaining learning via processing
- 5.1Where is language processing relevant to learning?
- 5.2Less is more. Maybe.
- 5.3The nature of the child advantage: When do children shine?
- 5.4What makes the hard stuff so hard?
- 5.5Why children shine, and how less could (eventually) be more
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (195)
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstamm, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 591, 249–306.
Aldwayan, S., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2010). Evidence of syntactic constraints in the processing of wh-movement: A study of Najdi Arabic learners of English. In B. VanPatten, & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 65–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J.M., & Lieven, E.V.M. (2014). Child language acquisition: Why Universal Grammar doesn’t help. Language: Perspectives.
Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax, 121, 93–124.
Arnon, I., & Ramscar, M. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 1221, 292–305.
Atkinson, E., Simeon, K., & Omaki, A. (2013). The time course of filler-gap dependency processing in the developing parser. Poster presented at the 26th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. Columbia, S. Carolina.
Avrutin, S., & Reuland, E. (2004). Backward anaphora and tense interpretation. In L. Verbitskaya (Ed.), Teoreticheskie problemy jazykoznanija [Theoretical issues in language research]. St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg University Press.
Baauw, S., Escobar, M.A., & Philip, W. (1997). A delay of Principle B effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock, & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing. Proceedings of GALA 1997. Edinburgh: HCRC.
Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 281, 748–769.
Berwick, R.C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B., & Chomsky, N. (2011). Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science, 351, 1207–1242.
Bever, T.G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J.R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder (eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 82–105). London: Blackwell.
Borovsky, A., Elman, J.L., & Fernald, A. (2012). Knowing a lot for one’s age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of experimental child psychology, 1121, 417–436.
Chen, Z., Jäger, L., & Vasishth, S. (2012). How structure-sensitive is the parser? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. In B. Stoltefoht, & S. Featherson (Eds.), Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies in meaning and structure (pp. 43–62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chien, Y.C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 11, 225–295.
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J.C. (2010). Children’s (in) ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1061, 41–61.
Chow, W.Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 630.
Chow, W.Y., Lau, E.F., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (submitted). Timing is everything: The temporal dynamics of word prediction.
Chow, W.Y., Smith, C., Lau, E.F., & Phillips, C. (2015). A “bag of arguments” mechanism for verb prediction. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, in press.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger. Cognitive Psychology, 368–407.
Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 651, 128–144.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 271, 3–42.
Clifton, C., Kennison, S.M., & Albrecht, J.E. (1997). Reading the words her, his, him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 361, 276–292.
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di linguistica, 111, 11–40.
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 401, 446–486.
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 544–573.
Crain, S., & McKee, C. (1985). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 15 (pp. 94–110). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Cunnings, I., & Felser, C. (2013). The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 281, 188–219.
Davidson, M.C., Amso, D., Anderson, L.C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 441, 2037–2078.
Deacon, D., Dynowska, A., Ritter, W., & Grose-Fifer, J. (2004). Repetition and semantic priming of nonwords: Implications for theories of N400 and word recognition. Psychophysiology, 411, 60–74.
DeKeyser, R.M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 551, 1–25.
DeLong, K.A., Urbach, T.P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 81, 1117–1121.
de Villiers, J.G. (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In J. Astington & J. Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 266–297). New York: Oxford University Press.
de Villiers, J.G. & Roeper, T. (1995). Barriers, binding, and acquisition of the DP-NP distinction. Language Acquisition, 4(1–2), 73–104.
de Villiers, J.G., Roper, T., Bland-Stewart, L., & Pearson, B. (2008). Answering hard questions: wh-movement across dialects and disorder. Applied Psycholinguistics, 291, 67–103.
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 1101, 293–321.
Dillon, B. (2014). Syntactic memory in the comprehension of reflexive dependencies: An overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 81, 171–187.
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, 691, 85–103.
Dussias, P.E., Valdés Kroff, J.R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 351, 353–387.
Eberhard, K.M., Cutting, J.C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 1121, 531–559.
Ellis, N.C. & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 553–580.
Elman, J.L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 481, 71–99.
Engelhardt, P.E. (2014). Children’s and adolescents’ processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity: An eye movement study. Child Development Research, 2014: Article ID 475315.
Fedele, E., & Kaiser, E. (2014). Looking back and looking forward: Anaphora and cataphora in Italian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 201, 81–90.
Federmeier, K.D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 441, 491–505.
Federmeier, K.D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 469–495.
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 331, 571–603.
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H. (2012). The timing of island effects in non-native sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 341, 67–98.
Ferman, S., & Karni, A. (2010). No childhood advantage in the acquisition of skill in using an artificial language rule. PloS ONE, 5(10), e13648.
Ferreira, F. & Henderson, J.M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 301, 725–745.
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N.D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11, 71–83.
Fischler, I., Bloom, P.A., Childers, D.G., Roucos, S.E., & Perry, N.W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 201, 400–409.
Fodor, J.D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 91, 427–473.
Foucart, A., Martin, C.D., Moreno, E.M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 401, 1461–1469.
Frazier, L., & Flores d’Arcais, G.B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 281, 331–344.
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-Time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 71, 55–78.
Goldowsky, B.N. & Newport, E.L. (1993). Modeling the effects of processing limitations on the acquisition of morphology: the less is more hypothesis. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th annual child language research forum, 124–138.
Gordon, P., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 621, 325–370.
Goro, T. (2007). Language-specific constraints on scope interpretation in first language acquisition1. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Goro, T., & Akiba, S. (2004) The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A.J. Rodriguez, & B. Schmeiser (Eds.), WCCFL 23: Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 251–264). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Grüter, T., Lew-Wiliams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem. Second Language Research, 281, 191–215.
Halgren, E., Dhond, R., Christensen, N., Petten, C., Marinkovic, K., Lewine, J., & Dale, A. (2002). N400-like Magnetoencephalography Responses Modulated by Semantic Context, Word Frequency, and Lexical Class in Sentences. NeuroImage, 1101–1116.
Harris, C.L., & Bates, E.A. (2002). Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command. Language and Cognitive Processes, 171, 237–269.
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Helenius, P., Salmelin, R., Service, E., & Connolly, J. (1999). Semantic Cortical Activation in Dyslexic Readers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 535–550.
Hitzcenko, K., & Jarosz, G. (2014). Cognitive limitations impose advantageous constraints on word segmentation. Talk at the 39th Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Holcomb, P., Grainger, J., & O’Rourke, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 141, 938–950.
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 1201, 901–931.
. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 291, 33–56.
. (2015). Individual differences in the L2 processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics. Published online 11 April 2013.
Huang, C.T.J. (1993). Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, 103–138.
Huang, Y.T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 691, 589–606.
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L.R., & Trueswell, J.C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 291, 597–626.
Jackson, C.N., & Dussias, P.E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 121, 65–82.
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2015). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Published online January 27th, 2015.
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 251, 603–634.
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 41, 257–282.
Kamin, L.J. (1969). Predictability, attention, surprise, and conditioning. In B.A. Campbell, & R.M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 276–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kaufman, D. (1988). Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children’s knowledge of binding theory and reference relations. PhD dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Kazanina, N. (2005). The acquisition and processing of backwards anaphora. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 561, 384–409.
Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2001). Coreference in child Russian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints. In A. Do, L. Dominguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 413–424). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
. (2010). Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 631, 371–400.
Kennison, S.M. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 491, 335–352.
Kidd, E., Stewart, A.J., & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: the role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 381, 222–234.
Kush, D., & Phillips, C. (2014). Local anaphor licensing in an SOV language: implications for retrieval strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 1252.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 41, 463–470.
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C.K., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified: 1994–2005. In M.A. Gernsbacher, & M. Traxler (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 659–724). New York: Elsevier.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 2071, 203–205.
Lassotta, R., Omaki, A., & Franck, J. (submitted). Developmental changes in the misinterpretation of garden-path wh-questions in French. Ms., University of Geneva and Johns Hopkins University.
Lau, E.F., Holcomb, P.J., & Kuperberg, G.K. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 251, 484–502.
Lau, E.F., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 981, 74–88.
Lau, E.F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 91, 920–933.
Leddon, E. and Lidz, J. (2006). Reconstruction Effects in Child Language. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Cascadilla Press: Cambridge.
Lee, M.-W., & Williams, J.N. (2006). The role of grammatical constraints in intra-sentential pronoun resolution. Ms., Cambridge University.
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, F. (2007). Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 181, 193–198.
. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 631, 447–464.
Lewis, S. (2013). Pragmatic enrichment in language processing and development. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 441, 27–46. .
Lidz, J. (2014). Quantification and scope in child language. To appear in Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics.
Lidz, J., Waxman, S., & Freedman, J. (2003). What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learned: experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months. Cognition, 891, 295–303.
Lukyanenko, C., Conroy, A., & Lidz, J. (2014). Is she patting Katie? Constraints on pronominal reference in 30-month-olds. Language Learning and Development, 101, 328–344.
MacWhinney, B., Pleh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 171, 178–209.
Mani, N., & Huettig, F. (2012). Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake — But only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 381, 843.
Maratsos, M., Fox, D.E., Becker, J.A., & Chalkley, M.A. (1985). Semantic restrictions on children’s passives. Cognition, 191, 167–191.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 271, 53–78.
Martin, C.D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 574–588.
Mazuka, R., Jincho, N., & Oishi, H. (2009). Development of executive control and language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 31, 59–89.
McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition, 21, 21–54.
Momma, S., Sakai, H., & Phillips, C. (2015). Give me several hundred more milliseconds: The temporal dynamics of verb prediction. Talk at the 28th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Los Angeles, CA.
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 351–398.
Nation, K., Marshall, C.M., & Altmann, G. (2003). Investigating individual differences in children’s real-time sentence comprehension using language-mediated eye movements. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 861, 314–329.
Newport, E.L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L.R. (1977). Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C.E. Snow, & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 109–149). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 181, 5–19.
Nieuwland, M.S., & Martin, A.E. (2012). If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition, 1221, 102–109.
Novick, J.M., Trueswell, J.C., & Thompson-Schill, S.L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 51, 263–281.
Omaki, A. (2010). Commitment and flexibility in the developing parser. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Omaki, A., Dyer, C., Malhotra, S., Sprouse, J., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2007). The time course of anaphoric processing and syntactic reconstruction. Talk at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. San Diego, California.
Omaki, A., Davidson White, I., Goro, T., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2014). No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development, 101, 206–233.
Omaki, A., & Lidz, J. (2014). Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition. Published online July 17th 2014.
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 331, 563–588.
Pablos, L., Ruijgrok, B., Doetjes, J., & Cheng, L.L.-S. (submitted). Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution. Ms. Leiden University.
Parker, D., & Phillips, C. (2014). Selective priority for structure in memory retrieval. Poster presentation at the 27th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Columbus, OH.
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2011). Early retrieval interference in syntax-guided antecedent search. Talk at the 24th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Pearl, L., Goldwater, S., & Steyvers, M. (2010). How ideal are we? Incorporating human limitations into Bayesian models of word segmentation. In K. Franich, K. Iserman, & L. Keil (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual Boston University Conference on Child Language Development (pp. 315–326). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Pearl, L., & Sprouse, J. (2013). Syntactic islands and learning biases: Combining experimental syntax and computational modeling to investigate the language acquisition problem. Language Acquisition, 201, 23–68.
Perfors, A. (2012). When do memory limitations lead to regularization? An experimental and computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 671, 486–506.
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J.B., & Regier, T. (2011). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 1181, 306–338.
Phillips, C. (1996). Order and Structure.1996. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
. (2013). On the nature of island constraints II: Language learning and innateness. In J. Sprouse, & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects (pp. 132–158). Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, C., & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 61, 11–47.
Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In G. Gaskell (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 739–756). Oxford University Press.
Phillips, C., Wagers, M.W., & Lau, E.F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 371) (pp. 147–180). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publications.
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 111, 105–110.
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D.S., & Frost, L.A. (1987). Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 261, 195–267.
Pozzan, L. & Trueswell, J.C. (2013). Online processing of English garden-path sentences by L2 learners: A visual world study. Poster presented at the 26th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.Columbia, SC.
Pullum, G.K. & Scholz, B.C. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 181, 9–50.
Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2007). An MEG Study of Silent Meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1905–1921.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 221, 358–374.
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 321, 299–331.
Rodríguez, G.A. (2008). Second language sentence processing: Is it fundamentally different? PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Rohde, D.L., & Plaut, D.C. (1999). Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: How important is starting small? Cognition, 721, 67–109.
Rohde, D.L.T., & Plaut, D.C. (2003). Less is less in language acquisition. In P. Quinlan (Ed.), Connectionist modelling of cognitive development (pp. 189–231). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 301, 193–241.
Saffran, J.R. (2003). Statistical language learning mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 121, 110–114.
Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s sentence processing. In R. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence Processing (pp. 189–220). New York, New York: Psychology Press.
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J.C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 491, 238–299.
Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 491, 1114–1128.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11, 1–33.
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 131, 195–210.
Speer, S.R., & Ito, K. (2009). Prosody in first language acquisition–Acquiring intonation as a tool to organize information in conversation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 31, 90–110.
Staub, A., & Clifton Jr, C. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either… or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 321, 425.
Stowe, L.A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 31, 227–245.
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 481, 542–562.
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, 2681, 1632–1634.
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2012). Electrophysiological markers of interference and structural facilitation in native and nonnative agreement processing. In A.K. Biller, E.Y. Chung, & A.E. Kimball (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 594–606). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Townsend, D.J., & Bever, T.G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Traxler, M.J., & Pickering, M.J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 351, 454–475.
Trueswell, J.C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N.M., & Logrip, M.L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 731, 89–134.
Unsworth, S., Gualmini, A., & Helder, C. (2008). Children’s interpretation of indefinites in sentences containing negation: A reassessment of the cross-linguistic picture. Language Acquisition, 151, 315–328.
Urbach, T.P. & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 631, 158–179.
Van Berkum, J.J. (2009). The neuropragmatics of ’simple’ utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland, & K. Yatsushiro (Ed.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–316). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Berkum, J.J., Brown, C.M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 311, 443.
van Gompel, R.P.G., & Liversedge, S.P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 291, 128–139.
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 181, 380–393.
Varlokosta, S. (2000). Lack of clitic-pronoun distinctions in the acquisition of Principle B in child Greek. In S.C. Howell, S.A Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 738–748). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear?. Cognition, 681, B13–B29.
Viau, J., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2010). Priming of abstract logical representations in 4-year-olds. Language Acquisition, 171, 26–50.
Wagers, M.W., Lau, E.F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 611, 206–237.
Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Information structure influences depth of syntactic processing: Event-related potential evidence for the Chomsky illusion. PloS ONE, 71, e47917.
Weckerly, J., Wulfeck, B., & Reilly, J. (2004). The development of morphosyntactic ability in atypical populations: The acquisition of tag questions in children with early focal lesions and children with specific-language impairment. Brain and Language, 881, 190–201.
Weighall, A.R. (2008). The kindergarten path effect revisited: Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 991, 75–95.
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 291, 761–770.
Cited by (83)
Cited by 83 other publications
Hopp, Holger, Sarah Schimke, David Öwerdieck, Freya Gastmann & Gregory J. Poarch
Lutken, C. Jane & Geraldine Legendre
Saponaro, Chiara, Desiré Carioti, Martina Riva & Maria Teresa Guasti
Tagliani, Marta, Lucas Cruz, Michela Redolfi, Natalya Shirokorad, Massimiliano Canzi, Chiara Melloni & Maria Vender
Weber, Chantal, Christoph Weber & Daniel Holzinger
Şafak, Duygu F. & Holger Hopp
Hopp, Holger, Sarah Schimke, Freya Gastmann, David Öwerdieck & Gregory J. Poarch
Pizarro-Guevara, Jed Sam & Matthew Wagers
Presotto, Giacomo & Jacopo Torregrossa
Pérez-Leroux, Ana T., Laura Colantoni, Danielle Thomas & Crystal H. Y. Chen
Ahn, Hyunah & Mi-Jeong Song
Biondo, N., E. Pagliarini, V. Moscati, L. Rizzi & A. Belletti
Klassen, Gabrielle, Aline Ferreira & John W. Schwieter
Luque, Alicia, Eleonora Rossi, Maki Kubota, Megan Nakamura, César Rosales, Cristina López-Rojas, Yulia Rodina & Jason Rothman
O’Grady, William & Miseon Lee
Torregrossa, Jacopo, Sonja Eisenbeiß & Christiane Bongartz
Ahn, Hyunah
Bovolenta, Giulia & Emma Marsden
Bovolenta, Giulia & Emma Marsden
CALLEJA, E. Javier & Brenda QUACH
CALLEJA, E. Javier & Brenda QUACH
Henry, Nick, Carrie N Jackson & Holger Hopp
Hestvik, Arild, Baila Epstein, Richard G. Schwartz & Valerie L. Shafer
Katsika, Kalliopi, Maria Lialiou & Shanley E.M. Allen
Pereira Soares, Sergio Miguel, Tanja Kupisch & Jason Rothman
Reuter, Tracy, Mia Sullivan & Casey Lew-Williams
Xia, Vera Yunxiao, Lydia White & Natália Brambatti Guzzo
Alemán Bañón, José & Clara Martin
Brunetto, Valentina
2021. Processing clitic pronouns outside coargumenthood. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 357], ► pp. 11 ff.
Fernández, Claudia
2021. Trials-to-criterion as a methodological option to measure language processing in processing instruction. In Research on second language processing and processing instruction [Studies in Bilingualism, 62], ► pp. 235 ff.
Garcia, Rowena, Gabriela Garrido Rodriguez & Evan Kidd
Kaan, Edith & Theres Grüter
2021. Prediction in second language processing and learning. In Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 12], ► pp. 1 ff.
Lago, Sol, Michela Mosca & Anna Stutter Garcia
Phillips, Colin, Phoebe Gaston, Nick Huang & Hanna Muller
Yan, Hanbo & Jie Liu
de Villiers, Jill, Jessica Kotfila & Tom Roeper
Jackson, Carrie
Jackson, Carrie N. & Holger Hopp
Jegerski, Jill & Irina A. Sekerina
Montero-Melis, Guillermo & T. Florian Jaeger
Slabakova, Roumyana, Tania Leal, Amber Dudley & Micah Stack
Barrière, Isabelle, Sarah Kresh, Katsiaryna Aharodnik, Géraldine Legendre & Thierry Nazzi
2019. The comprehension of 3rd person singular -s by NYC English-speaking preschoolers. In Three Streams of Generative Language Acquisition Research [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 63], ► pp. 7 ff.
de Villiers, Jill G., Jessica Kotfila & Madeline Klein
2019. Parsing, pragmatics, and representation. In Three Streams of Generative Language Acquisition Research [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 63], ► pp. 85 ff.
DeLuca, Vincent, David Miller, Christos Pliatsikas & Jason Rothman
Dijkgraaf, Aster, Robert J. Hartsuiker & Wouter Duyck
Felser, Claudia
Lago, Sol, Martina Gračanin-Yuksek, Duygu Fatma Şafak, Orhan Demir, Bilal Kırkıcı & Claudia Felser
Lago, Sol, Anna Stutter Garcia & Claudia Felser
Ambridge, Ben, Libby Barak, Elizabeth Wonnacott, Colin Bannard, Giovanni Sala, Rolf Zwaan & Fernanda Ferreira
Green, Kieran & John W. Schwieter
Guasti, Maria Teresa, Mirta Vernice & Julie Franck
Hopp, Holger & Natalia Lemmerth
MARSDEN, EMMA, SOPHIE THOMPSON & LUKE PLONSKY
Rothman, Jason & Roumyana Slabakova
CUNNINGS, IAN
Henry, Nick, Holger Hopp & Carrie N. Jackson
Johnson Fowler, Courtney & Carrie N. Jackson
Joo, Kum-Jeong
McManus, Kevin & Emma Marsden
OMAKI, AKIRA
Schremm, Andrea, Anna Hed, Merle Horne & Mikael Roll
Shin, Gyu-Ho
Shin, Gyu-Ho
Shin, Gyu-Ho
de Villiers, Jill
DeKeyser, Robert
2015.
Why less is eventually more in second language acquisition
. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 454 ff.
Foucart, Alice
2015.
Prediction is a question of experience
. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 465 ff.
Foucart, Alice
2021. Language prediction in second language. In Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 12], ► pp. 91 ff.
Gabriele, Alison, Robert D. Fiorentino & Adrienne Johnson
2015.
Attentional control and prediction in native and non-native speakers
. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 470 ff.
Hopp, Holger
Hopp, Holger
Hopp, Holger
Hopp, Holger
2021. Prediction and grammatical learning in second language sentence processing. In Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 12], ► pp. 167 ff.
Hopp, Holger
Kaan, Edith
2015.
Knowing without predicting, predicting without learning. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 482 ff.
Kidd, Evan
2015. Incorporating learning into theories of parsing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 487 ff.
Lew-Williams, Casey
2015.
Infants’ history of distributional learning in real time
. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 494 ff.
Pozzan, Lucia & John C. Trueswell
Schaeffer, Jeannette
2015.
On the link between complex predictive abilities and memory in language acquisition
. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 522 ff.
Sekerina, Irina A.
Smith, Michael Sharwood
2015.
On virtual versus real spatio-temporal explanations of linguistic development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 537 ff.
Westergaard, Marit
2015.
Complexity in child and adult language acquisition
. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 541 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
