Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing

REFERENCES

• Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748–765. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748
   Google Scholar
• Almor, A. (2004). A computational investigation of reference in production and comprehension. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language -as-action traditions (pp. 285–301). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Almor, A., & Eimas, P. D. (2008). Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 201–225. doi: 10.1080/01690960701330936
   Google Scholar
• Almor, A., & Nair, V. A. (2007). The form of referential expressions in discourse. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 84–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00009.x
   Google Scholar
• Almor, A., & Phillips, M. (2006, November). Category NP anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomics Society, Houston, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T. M., & Mirkovic, H. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33, 583–609. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13–B26. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
   Google Scholar
• Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–87. doi: 10.3758/BF03197179
   Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 147–182. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2641
   Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40(2), 235–248. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.00025
   Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., 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, 31, 443–467. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2004). So who's ‘he’ anyway? Differential ERP and ERSP effects of referential success, ambiguity and failure during spoken language comprehension. Annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society (CNS-2004), San Francisco, April 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Boland, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1991). The role of lexical representations in sentence processing. Advances in Psychology, 77, 331–366. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61539-3
   Google Scholar
• Bor, D., Duncan, J., Wiseman, R. J., & Owen, A. M. (2003). Encoding strategies dissociate prefrontal activity from working memory demand. Neuron, 37(2), 361–367. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(02)01171-6
   Google Scholar
• Boudewyn, M. A., Long, D. L., & Swaab, T. Y. (2013). Effects of working memory span on processing of lexical associations and congruence in spoken discourse. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00060
   Google Scholar
• Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67(2), 135–144. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(88)90009-1
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
   Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592–609. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.008
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 30–49. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2832
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. A. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 269–321). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98(2), 105–135. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 538–544.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ “good enough” interpretations of garden path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
   Google Scholar
• Cook, A. E. (2014). Processing anomalous anaphors. Memory & Cognition, 42(7), 1171–1185. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0415-0
   Google Scholar
• Courville, A. C., Daw, N. D., & Touretzky, D. S. (2006). Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 294–300. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.004
   Google Scholar
• Craik, E. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
   Google Scholar
• Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., Desmet, T., & De Baecke, C. (2004). Word skipping in reading: On the interplay of linguistic and visual factors. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 79–103. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000141
   Google Scholar
• Dwivedi, V. D. (2013). Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: Evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing. PLoS ONE, 8(11): e81461. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081461
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, T. A., & Matteson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learn and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, T. A., Cargill, S. A., Hindy, N. C., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Tracking the continuity of language comprehension: Computer mouse trajectories suggest parallel syntactic processing. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 889–909. doi: 10.1080/03640210701530797
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1034
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20. doi: 10.1023/A:1005290706460
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Foucart, A., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2013). Language processing in the visual world: Effects of preview, visual complexity, and prediction. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 165–182. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The good enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96, 263–284. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Fincher-Kiefer, R. (1993). The role of predictive inferences in situation model construction. Discourse Processes, 16, 99–124. doi: 10.1080/01638539309544831
   Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cognitive Science, 37(3), 578–91. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12022
   Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77661. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101–141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (2000). Garden path re-analysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort? In M. de Vincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspective on language processing (pp. 21–61). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181–200. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7
   Google Scholar
• Frisson, S., Rayner, K., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 862–877.
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2011). The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1472–1504. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.506444
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2012). Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee's discourse model? Cognitive Science, 36, 1289–1311. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01255.x
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1700–1715. doi: 10.1080/17470210903490969
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 284–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.003
   Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 225–258. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2773
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Foster, K. (2000). Language comprehension and probe-list memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 766–775.
   Google Scholar
• Gorrell, P. G. (1987). Studies of human syntactic processing: Ranked-parallel versus serial models (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Stores.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, S. B., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 266–283.
   Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Baggio, G., & Willems, R. M. (2009). Semantic unification. In The cognitive neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 819–836). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181–1197. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
   Google Scholar
• van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 241–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(4), 589–606. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4001_1
   Google Scholar
• Imbo, I., Szmalec, A., & Vandierendonck, A. (2009). The role of structure in age-related increases in visuo-spatial working memory span. Psychologica Belgica, 49(4), 275–291. doi: 10.5334/pb-49-4-275
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain research, 1146, 2–22. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127(1), 57–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Tily, H. (2011). On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 323–335.
   Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8
   Google Scholar
• Karimi, H. & Ferreira, F. (2015). Informativity renders a referent more accessible: Evidence from eye-tracking. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Karimi, H., Fukumura, K., Ferreira, F., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions. Memory & Cognition, 42, 993–1009. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0400-7
   Google Scholar
• Klin, C. M., Guzman, A. E., Weingartner, K. M., & Ralano, A. S. (2006). When anaphor resolution fails: Partial encoding of anaphoric inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 131–143. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.09.001
   Google Scholar
• Klin, C. M., Weingartner, K. M., Guzman, A. E., & Levine, W. H. (2004). Readers_sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory & Cognition, 32, 511–522. doi: 10.3758/BF03195843
   Google Scholar
• Kukona, A., Fang, S. Y., Aicher, K. A., Chen, H., & Magnuson, J. S. (2011). The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition, 119(1), 23–42. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.002
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   Google Scholar
• Kurtzman, H. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243–279. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90042-T
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). Ambiguity's aftermath: How age differences in resolving lexical ambiguity affect subsequent comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 869–879. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.027
   Google Scholar
• Levine, W. H., Guzman, A. E., & Klin, C. M. (2000). When anaphor resolution fails. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 594–617. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2719
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   Google Scholar
• Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013a). Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 518–537. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000351
   Google Scholar
• Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013b). Integrating meaning and structure in L1–L2 and L2–L1 translations. Second Language Research, 29(3), 233–256. doi: 10.1177/0267658312462019
   Google Scholar
• Love, J., & McKoon, G. (2011). Rules of engagement: Incomplete and complete pronoun resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 874–887.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, M. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory & Cognition, 18, 611–631. doi: 10.3758/BF03197104
   Google Scholar
• Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2012). Semantic predictability eliminates the transposed-letter effect. Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 628–641. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0170-4
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 56–98. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90003-K
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., & MacWhinney, B. (1990). Measuring inhibition and facilitation in pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 469–92. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90067-A
   Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L. (1998). Connectionist models and Bayesian inference. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 21–52). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003). Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science, 14(6), 648–652. doi: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1480.x
   Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118, 155–167. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.022
   Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106, 119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Osgood, C. E., & Bock, J. K. (1977). Salience and sentencing: Some production principles. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production: Developments in research and theory (pp. 89–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2009). Does working memory capacity affect the ability to predict upcoming words in discourse? Brain Research, 1291, 92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.042
   Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., Swensen, E., Moon, N., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Individual differences in syntactic reanalysis. Poster presented at the Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 2006, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., Grison, S., Gao, X., Christianson, K., Morrow, D. G., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2014). Aging and individual differences in binding during sentence understanding: Evidence from temporary and global syntactic attachment ambiguities. Cognition, 130(2), 157–173. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence. New York: International University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 3526–3529. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012551108
   Google Scholar
• Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–291. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259. doi: 10.1080/01690969108406944
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556–573.
   Google Scholar
• Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R., & Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes, 42, 157–175. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_4
   Google Scholar
• Qian, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2012). Cue effectiveness in communicatively efficient discourse production. Cognitive Science, 36(7), 1312–1336. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01256.x
   Google Scholar
• Qian, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Aslin, R. (2012). Learning to represent a multicontext environment: More than detecting changes. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00228
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Li, X., Juhasz, B. J., & Yan, G. (2005). The effect of word predictability on the eye movements of Chinese readers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1089–1093. doi: 10.3758/BF03206448
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.
   Google Scholar
• Rigalleau, F., & Caplan, D. (2000). Effects of gender marking in pronominal coindexation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 23–52. doi: 10.1080/713755884
   Google Scholar
• Rigalleau, F., Caplan, D., & Baudiffier, V. (2004). New arguments in favour of an automatic gender pronominal process. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 893–933. doi: 10.1080/02724980343000549
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Filik, R. (2006). They as a gender-unspecified singular pronoun: Eye tracking reveals processing cost. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 171–178. doi: 10.1080/17470210600973390
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Sanford, A., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 109–130. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_2
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
   Google Scholar
• Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109–148. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00025-6
   Google Scholar
• Smith, N., & Levy, R. (2008). Optimal processing times in reading: A formal model and empirical investigation. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), The 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) (pp. 595–600). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
   Google Scholar
• Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye-movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447–481. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00503-0
   Google Scholar
• Staub, A., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either … or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 425–436.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, A. J., Holler, J., & Kidd, E. (2007). Shallow processing of ambiguous pronouns: Evidence for delay. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 60, 1680–1696. doi: 10.1080/17470210601160807
   Google Scholar
• Swaab, T. Y., Camblin, C. C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 715–726. doi: 10.1162/089892904970744
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36, 201–216. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64–81. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64
   Google Scholar
• Tomlin, R. S. (1995). Focal attention, voice, and word order: An experimental, cross-linguistic study. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–554). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules (Vol. 1950). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2600
   Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psychobiology of language. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar