Cover not available

Commentary 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. 487–493

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Commentary

Incorporating learning into theories of parsing

 | The Australian National University, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
Published online: 31 December 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.08kid
Article outline
  • Language processing and language acquisition
  • Processing effects as learning effects
  • Concluding remarks
  • References
References (36)
References
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 421, 239–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 201, 539–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G.S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 1131, 234–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, M.H., & MacDonald, M.C. (2009). A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 591, 126–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dell, G.S., & Chang, F. (2014). The P-Chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20120394, 1471–2970Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2009). On the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of subject and non-subject relative clauses. In T. Givon, & M. Shibatani (Eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neurocognition, evolution (pp. 251–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 131–151.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W. (1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 631, 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Perfors, A., & Marchman, V.A. (2006). Picking up speed in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the second year. Developmental Psychology, 421, 98–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitz, H., Chang, F., & Christiansen, M.H. (2011). A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In E. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology, and function (Vol 81, pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J.D. (1998a). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 271, 285–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1998b). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 271, 339–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 661, 856–870. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & de Villiers, J. (Eds.) (1990). Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M.C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 581, 161–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 1111, 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 681, 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutton, J., & Kidd, E. (2011). Structural priming in comprehension of relative clauses: In search of a frequency by regularity interaction. In E. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: typology, processing, and function (pp. 227–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Junge, C., & Cutler, A. (2014). Early word recognition and later language skills. Brain Sciences, 41, 532–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (2004). Grammars, parsers, and language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 311, 480–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, E., & Bavin, E.L. (2002). English-speaking children’s understanding of relative clauses: Evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 311, 599–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A crosslinguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 221, 860–897. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDonald, M.C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(Article 226), 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (Eds.) (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mak, W.M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 471, 50–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 51, 409–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M.H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 571, 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 571, 348–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sakas, W.G., & Fodor, J.D. (2012). Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition, 191, 83–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s sentence processing. In R. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 189–220). New York, New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M.J., Williams, R.S., Blozis, S.A., & Morris, R.K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 531, 204–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, J.C., & Gleitman, L. (2004). Children’s eye-movements during listening: developmental evidence for a constraint-based theory of sentence processing. In J.M. Henderson, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Interface of vision, action, and language (pp. 319–346). NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 361, 599–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, J.B., Christiansen, M.H., Race, D.S., Acheson, D.J., & MacDonald, M.C. (2009). Experience and sentence comprehension: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 581, 250–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue