Ambiguity, parsing, and the evaluation measure

References

• Baker, Mark C. 2005. The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, Franklin, Gary S. Dell & Kathryn Bock. 2006. Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2). 234–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesi, Cristiano. 2015. On directionality of phrase structure building. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44 (1).65–89. Special Issue: Grammars and Parsers: Toward a Unified Theory of Language Knowledge and Use.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Studies in Generative Grammar 9. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (Eds.), The View From Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, Kiel, Andrew Hollingworth, John F. Halliwell & Fernanda Ferreira. 2001. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology 42. 368–407.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Robin. 1992. The selection of knowledge. Language Acquisition 2. 83–149.
   Google Scholar
• Dresher, Elan. 1999. Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 27–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dresher, Elan & Jonathan Kaye. 1990. A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34. 137–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, Janet Dean. 1992. Islands, learnability and the lexicon. In Helen Goodluck &Michael Rochemont (eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, 109–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, Janet Dean. 1994. How to obey the Subset Principle: Binding and locality. In Barbara Lust, Gabriella Hermon & Jaklin Kornfilt (eds.), Binding, dependencies and learnability, Vol. 2 of Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguisic perspectives (pp. 429–452). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, Janet Dean. 1998a. Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 1–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, Janet Dean. 1998b. Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27(3). 339–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, Janet Dean. 2009. Syntax acquisition: An evaluation measure after all? In M. Piatelli Palmarini, J. Uriagereka and P. Salaburu (eds.), Of Minds and Language: The Basque Country Encounter with Noam Chomsky, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, Janet Dean. 2013. What parsers want from grammars. Paper presented at “The Cognitive Revolution, 60 Years On” conference, September 26–27, The British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences, London.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, Janet Dean & William G. Sakas. 2004. Evaluating models of parameter setting. In Alegna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla & Christine E. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development [BUCLD 28], 1–27. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fong, Sandiway. 2015. Modeling linguistic theory on a computer: From GB to minimalism. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44 (1).65–89. Special Issue: Grammars and Parsers: Toward a Unified Theory of Language Knowledge and Use.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, Lyn & Janet Dean Fodor. 1978. The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6(4). 291–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagliardi, Annie, Tara M. Mease & Jeffrey Lidz. 2016. Discontinuous development in the acquisition of filler-gap dependencies: Evidence from 15- and 20-month-olds. Language Acquisition 23(2), 234–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, Edward & Kenneth Wexler. 1994. Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 407–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, Barry. 1983. Lexical access and lexical decision: mechanisms of frequency sensitivity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22.1. 24–44.
   Google Scholar
• Han, Chung-Hye, Jeffrey Lidz & Julien Musolino. 2007. V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from quantification and negation. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 1–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartsuiker, Robert J., Sarah Bernolet, Sofie Schoonbaert, Sara Speybroeck & Dieter Vanderelst. 2008. Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2). 214–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky & W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598). 1569–1579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In G. Cinque and R. Kayne (Eds.) Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press, New York, 3–69.
   Google Scholar
• Lightfoot, David W. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lightfoot, David W. 2015. How to trigger elements of I-languages. In Angel Gallego & Dennis Ott (eds.), 50 years later: Reflections on Chomsky’s aspects. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 77. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, M. Rita & Kenneth Wexler. 1987. Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3). 413–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, Gary F. 2013. Evolution, memory, and the nature of syntactic representation. In John J. Bolhuis & Martin Everaert (eds.), Birdsong, speech and language: Exploring the evolution of mind and brain (pp. 27–44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McElree, Brian. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 111–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot. 2010. Theoretical validity and psychological reality of the grammatical code. In Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Oystein Nilsen & Arjen Zondervan (eds.), The linguistics enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics, 183–212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Omaki, Akira & Jeffrey Lidz. 2015. Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 22(2). 158–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, Lisa S. 2011. When unbiased probabilistic learning is not enough: Acquiring a parametric system of metrical phonology. Language Acquisition 18. 87–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20.3, 365–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland, Caroline F., Franklin Chang, Ben Ambridge, Julian M. Pine & Elena V. M. Lieven. 2012. The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 125. 49–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakas, William G. & Janet Dean Fodor. 2012. Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition 19. 83–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder, William. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, William. 2016. How to set the Compounding Parameter. In Laurel Perkins, Rachel Dudley, Juliana Gerard & Kasia Hitczenko (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2015), 122–130. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sugisaki, Koji & William Snyder. 2006. The parameter of preposition stranding: A view from child English. Language Acquisition 13. 349–361.
   Google Scholar
• Tomasello, Michael. 2000. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11, 61–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, John C., Irina Sekerina, Nicole M.Hill & Marian L. Logrip. 1999. The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73. 89–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valian, Virginia, Judith Winzemer & Anne Erreich. 1981. A “little linguist” model of syntax learning. In Susan Tavakolian (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 188–209. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Charles. 2011. Computational models of syntactic acquisition. WIREs Cognitive Science 3(2). 205–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Charles. 2016. The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar