Attention and Memory Play Different Roles in Syntactic Choice During Sentence Production

References

• Antón-Méndez, I., Gerfen, C., & Ramos, M. (2016). Salience effects: L2 sentence production as a window on L1 speech planning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 537–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J.E., & Griffin, Z.M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everything counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J.K., & Ferreira, V. (2014). Syntactically speaking. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentence production (pp. 21–46). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J.K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caffarra, S., Pesciarelli, F., & Cacciari, C. (2013). The interaction between language and visual spatial attention systems in grammatical gender processing. An N2pc study. Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 217–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, Q., Van der Haegen, L., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Complementary hemispheric specialization for language production and visuospatial attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, E322–E330.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H.H., & Chase, W.G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coco, M. I., & Keller, F. (2015). Integrating mechanisms of visual guidance in naturalistic language production. Cognitive Processing, 16, 131–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobel, C., Gumnior, H., Bölte, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2007). Describing scenes hardly seen. Acta Psychologica, 125, 129–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 357–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gámez, P. B., & Vasilyeva, M. (2015). Exploring interactions between semantic and syntactic processes: The role of animacy in* syntactic priming. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 138, 15–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennari, S. P., Mirković, J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 141–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, B. S., & Bryant, T. A. (2005). Variation in cue duration reveals top-down modulation of involuntary orienting to uninformative symbolic cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 749–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givon, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 544–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin, Z.M., & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 537–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafri, A., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Getting the gist of events: Recognition of two-participant actions from brief displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardin, J., & Hilbe,J. (2003). Generalized estimating equations. London, UK: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwabuchi, T., Inui, T., Ohba, M., & Ogawa, K. (2013). A functional MRI study of a picture–sentence verification task: evidence of attention shift to the grammatical subject. NeuroReport, 24, 298–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kastner, S., & Ungerleider, L.G. (2000). Mechanisms of visual attention in the human cortex. Annual Review Neuroscience, 23, 315–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsitz, R.S., Kim, K., & Zhao, L. (1994). Analysis of repeated categorical data using generalized estimating equations. Statistics in Medicine, 13, 1149–1163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (2001). Working memory and focal attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montag, J. L., & MacDonald, M. C. (2013). Visual salience modulates structure choice in relative clause production. Language and Speech, 57, 163–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., & Scheepers, C. (2011). Perceptual priming of structural choice during English and Finnish sentence production. In R.K. Mishra & N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Language and cognition: The state of the arts. (pp. 53–71). Munich, German: Lincom Europa.
   Google Scholar
• Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., & Scheepers, C. (2012). Determinants of structural choice in visually-situated sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 141, 304–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myachykov, A., Scheepers, C., Garrod, S., Thompson, D., & Fedorova, O. (2013). Syntactic flexibility and competition in sentence production: The case of English and Russian. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1601–1619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myachykov, A., Thompson, D., Garrod, S., & Scheepers, C. (2012). Referential and visual cues to structural choice in sentence production. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, D.R., & Filby, N. (1972). On the comprehension of active and passive sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 361–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M.J., & Branigan, H.P., 1998. The representation of verbs: evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 633–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, M.I. (1980). Orienting of attention, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prat-Sala, M., & Branigan, H.P. (2000). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English & Spanish. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 168–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentice, J.L. (1967). Effects of cuing actor vs. cuing object on word order in sentence production. Psychonomic Science, 8, 163–164.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A.J. (2001). Context, attention, and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind and Language, 17, 188–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A.J., & Garrod, S.C. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations beyond the sentence. Chichester, UK: John Willey & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, T., Moxey, L., & Paterson, K. (1996). Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and communication. Memory and Cognition, 24, 144–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R. (2011). Eye movements as an index of linguistic processing in language production. Journal of Psychology and Behavior, 9, 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Jia, A., Ferreira, V. S., & Rayner, K. (2014). Preview benefit in speaking occurs regardless of preview timing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 755–762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlin, R.S. (1995). Focal attention, voice, and word order. In P. Dowing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–552). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlin, R. S., & Myachykov, A. (2015). Attention in the organization and development of grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics. (pp. 31–53). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, E.A., & Rommetveit, R. (1968). Focus of attention in recall of active and passive sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 543–548.
   Google Scholar
• Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2013). Who is where referred to how, and why? The influence of visual saliency on referent accessibility in spoken language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1323–1349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar