Going the distance: Memory and control processes in active dependency construction

REFERENCES

• Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. S. (2004). Processing filler–gap dependencies in a head–final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 23–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 12–28.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
   Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G., Lackner, J. R., & Kirk, R. (1969). The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 225–234. doi: 10.3758/BF03210545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774–806. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdages, J. S. (1992). Parsing complex NPs in French. In H. Goodluck & M. S. Rochemond (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing (pp. 61–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Broadbent 1958.
   Google Scholar
• Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1977). On Wh-Movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1987). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H., & Featherston, S. (1999). Antecedent priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 415–437. doi: 10.1023/A:1023293132656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conklin, K., Koenig, J. P., & Mauner, G. (2004). The role of specificity in the lexical encoding of participants. Brain and language, 90, 221–230. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00435-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01003922
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 94–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond, A. (2010). Ibexfarm (Version 0.3) [Software]. Retrieved from https://github.com/addrummond/ibexfarm
   Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250–272. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00004-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. (1971). A note on the spray-paint cases. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 603–607.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–560. doi: 10.1007/BF00138988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126. doi: 10.1080/01690968908406359
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Flores D'Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler–driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory of Language, 28, 331–344. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 111–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x
   Google Scholar
• Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 263–276. doi: 10.3758/BF03201138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51–60. doi: 10.1007/BF01069046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Syntactic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 15.1–15.32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093615
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Wooley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–560. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word-and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M.-W. (2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentence processing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 51–73. doi: 10.1023/B:JOPR.0000010514.50468.30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L. (2000). Specifying architectures for language processing: Process, control, and memory in parsing and interpretation. In M. W. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 56–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection theory: A user's guide. Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, M. R. (1992). Locality: A theory and some of its empirical consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123. doi: 10.1023/A:1005184709695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (2001). Working memory and focal attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 817–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 46, pp. 155–200). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1989). Serial position and set size in short-term memory: Time course of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 346–373. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.118.4.346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 48(1), 67–91. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 432–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinnon, R., & Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Language and Cognition, 11, 495–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1994). Sentential context and on-line lexical decision tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1239–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nairne, J. S. (2006). Modeling distinctiveness: Implications for general memory theory. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 27–46). USA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neville, H. J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically-based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, J. L., Fodor, J. D., & Swinney, D. (1994). Using cross–modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 20, 1229–1238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19. doi: 10.1007/BF01069043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2006). A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 601–626. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberauer, K., & Vockenberg, K. (2009). Updating of working memory: Lingering bindings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 967–987. doi: 10.1080/17470210802372912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omaki, A., Lau, E., Davidson White, I., & Phillips, C. (2010). Hyper-active gap filling: Pre-verbal object gap creation in English filler-gap dependency processing. Submitted.
   Google Scholar
• Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588. doi: 10.1017/S0272263111000313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, C. (2006). The real–time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795–823. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long–distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407–428. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.012
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. W. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 739–756). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, C., Wagers, M., & Lau, E. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces, syntax and semantics (Vol. 37, pp. 147–180). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., Barton, S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 199–224). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: lexical information and verb argument assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1401–1410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2003). Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 469–503. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1986). What to do with Theta Roles. (Lexicon Project Working Papers, 11). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, D. (2003). Linger (Version 2.94) [Software]. Retrieved from http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Linger/
   Google Scholar
• Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Ruchkin, D. S., Johnson, R. Jr., Canoune, H., & Ritter, W. (1990). Short-term memory storage and retention: An event-related brain potential study. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 76, 419–439. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(90)90096-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprouse, J., Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123. doi: 10.1353/lan.2012.0004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2007). The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 550–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh–constructions: Evidence for on–line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–246. doi: 10.1080/01690968608407062
   Google Scholar
• Stowe, L. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1991). Filling gaps on-line: Use of lexical and semantic information in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 34, 319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 882–888. doi: 10.3758/BF03196716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sussman, R., & Sedivy, J. (2003). The time course of processing syntactic dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 143–163. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinney, D., Ford, M., Frauenfelder, U., & Bresnan, J. (1988). On the temporal course of gap-filling and antecedent assignment during sentence comprehension. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Stowe, L. A., & Carlson, G. (1985). The interaction of lexical expectation and pragmatics in parsing filler-gap constructions. Proceedings of the seventh annual cognitive science society meetings, Irvine, CA, pp. 361–365.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 157–166. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Velde, F., & de Kamps, M. (2006). Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures in cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 37–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhaegen, P., Cerella, J., & Basak, C. (2004). A working memory workout: How to expand the focus of serial attention from one to four items in 10 hours or less. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30, 1322–1337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 395–433. doi: 10.1017/S0022226709005726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weinberg, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal Commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 339–364. doi: 10.1007/BF01068016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar