Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances

References

• Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144. doi:10.1007/BF01069051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aksu-Koç, A. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1985). Acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: The data (pp. 839–878). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Aksu-Koç, A. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1986). A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 159–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, S. E. M. (1996). Aspects of argument structure acquisition in Inuktitut. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lald.13
   Google Scholar
• Ammon, M. S., & Slobin, D. I. (1979). A cross-linguistic study of the processing of causative sentences. Cognition, 7, 3–17. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(79)90007-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55. doi: 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Asudeh, A., & Alrenga, P. (2004). Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 55–70. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. doi:10.1177/00238309040470010201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & Wulfeck, B. (2001). Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 369–396. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245–299. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(82)90017-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavin, E., & Stoll, S. (Eds.). (2013). The acquisition of ergativity [Trends in Language Acquisition series (TILAR)]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tilar.9
   Google Scholar
• Bavin, E. L. (1992). The acquisition of Walpiri. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 309–371). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, R. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic comparisons in child language research. Journal of Child Language, 41, 26–37. doi:10.1017/S0305000914000208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–352). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bickel, B., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Choudhary, K. K., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2015). The neuophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0132819. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleek, Wilhelm H. I. (1851). De nominum generibus linguarum Africae Australia. Bonnae: Formis Caroli Georgii.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 1–47. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K. (1990). Structure in language: Creating form in talk. American Psychologist, 45, 1221–1236. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.11.1221
   PubMed 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 Language Production. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., Irwin, D. E., & Davidson, D. J. J. (2004). Putting first things first. In F. Ferreira & M. Henderson (Eds.), The integration of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 249–278). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bohnemeyer, J. B., Butler, L. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (in press). Head-marking and agreement: Evidence from Yucatec Maya. For Van Valin Festschrift.
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Choudhary, K. K., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., & Bickel, B. (2008). Bridging the gap between processing preferences and typological distributions: Initial evidence from the online comprehension of control constructions in Hindi. Scales (= Ling. Arbeits Berichte 86), pp. 397–436.
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç, S., Philipp, M., & Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 117(3), 133–152. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Minimality as vacuous distinctness: Evidence from cross-linguistic sentence comprehension. Lingua, 119(10), 1541–1559. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19–58. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Neurotypology: Modeling crosslinguistic similarities and differences in the neurocognition of language comprehension. In M. Sanz, I. Laka, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Language down the garden path: The cognitive and biological basis of linguistic structure (pp. 241–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0012
   Google Scholar
• Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Vasishth, S., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language & Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 301–349. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.492228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development: A cross linguistic study, with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M. (1985). What shapes children's grammars? In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1257–1319). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M. (2011). Linguistic typology and first language acquisition. In J. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 591–617). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P. (1998). Children's first verbs in Tzeltal: Evidence for an early verb category. Linguistics, 36(4), 713–753. doi:10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.713
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 664–695. doi:10.1080/713755636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, L. K., Bohnemeyer, J. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2014). Plural marking in Yucatec Maya at the syntax-processing interface. In A. Machicao y Priemer, A. Nolda, & A. Sioupi (Eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie [Between core and periphery: Studies on peripheral phenomena in language and grammar] (Studia Grammatica 76) (pp. 181–208). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, L. K., Bohnemeyer, J. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Effects of animacy on sentence production: Ease of retrieval or topicality? Manuscript submitted for publication. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
   Google Scholar
• Caballero, G. & Kapatsinski, V. (2014). Perceptual functionality of morphological redundancy in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1134–1143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carreiras, M., Dunabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavia, I. & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115, 79–92. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casagrande, J. B. (1960). The southwest project in comparative psycholinguistics: A preliminary report. In A. Wallace (Ed.), Men and cultures (selected papers of the fifth international congress of anthropologicl and ethnological sciences, Philadelphia, September 1–9, 1956) (pp. 777–782). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, B., Ning, A., Bi, H., & Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129, 61–65. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childers, J. B., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Are nouns easier to learn than verbs? Three experimental studies. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170009.003.0013
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 489–509. doi:10.1017/S0140525X08004998
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemens, L. E., Coon, J., Pedro, P. M., Morgan, A. M., Polinsky, M., Tandet, G., & Wagers, M. (2015). Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33(2), 417–467. doi:10.1007/s11049-014-9260-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., & Mehler, J. (1996). Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 24(1), 94–102. doi:10.3758/BF03197275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A., Alario, F. X., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2007). Cross linguistic research on language production. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 531–546). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.013.0032
   Google Scholar
• Crocker, M. (1996). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1600-5
   Google Scholar
• Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. (1985). Cross-language psycholinguistics. Linguistics, 23, 659–667. doi:10.1515/ling.1985.23.5.659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. (2009). Psycholinguistics in our time. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.), Inside psychology: A science over 50 years (pp. 91–101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., Mehler, H., Norris, D. G., & Segui, J. (1983). A language-specific comprehension strategy. Nature, 304, 159–160. doi:10.1038/304159a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1986). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 385–400. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90033-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1989). Limits on bilingualism. Nature, 340, 229–230. doi: 10.1038/340229a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dediu, D., & Ladd, D. R. (2007). Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(26), 10944–10949. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610848104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, K., Fernández, E., Fodor, J., Stenshoel, E., & Vinereanu, M. (1999). Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY, March 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L., Hare, M., & McRae, K. (2004). Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In M. Tomasello & D. Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 111–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–492. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedorova, O., & Yanovich, I. (2004). Relative clause attachment in Russian: The role of constituent length. Talk presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP). Aix-en-Provence, France.
   Google Scholar
• Fedorova, O., & Yanovich, I. (2006). Early preferences in RC-attachment in Russian: The effect of working memory differences. In J. Lavine, S. Franks, M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva, & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of FASL 14 (pp. 113–128). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T. F., & Newport, E. L. (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17897–17902. doi:10.1073/pnas.1215776109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., Newport, E. L., & Jaeger, T. F. (in press). The miniature artificial language learning paradigm as a complement to typological data. In L. Ortega, A. Tyler, H. I. Park & M. Uno (Eds.), The Usage-based Study of Language Learning and Multilingualism. Georgetown: GUP.
   Google Scholar
• Fedzechkina, M., Newport, E. L., & Jaeger, T. F. (resubmitted). Balancing effort and information transmission during language acquisition: Evidence from word order and case-marking. Submitted for consideration to Cognitive Science.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(1), 57–84. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, C. (2002). The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000). Cognition, 82, 259–278. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00159-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitneva, S., & Matsui, T. (Eds.), (2009). Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203–218. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90156-1
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (1966). Left-to-right processes in the construction of sentences. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 5(3), 285–291. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80032-4
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (1968). Sentence completion in left-and right-branching languages. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7(2), 296–299. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80004-0
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Clyne, M. G. (1968). Sentence construction in German-English bilinguals. Language and speech, 11(2), 113–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortescue, M., & Lennert Olsen, L. (1992). The acquisition of West Greenlandic. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 111–220).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, D. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1973). On the psychological reality of the phoneme: Perception, identification, and consciousness. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 246–257. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80069-6
   Google Scholar
• Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 328–337. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90257-1
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Ph.D. dissertation). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 129–187). Cambridge: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559. doi:10.1007/BF00138988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton Jr, C. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 277–295. doi:10.1023/A:1025024524133
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 178–210. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (2000). Resolving syntactic ambiguities: Crosslinguistic differences? In M. D. Vincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 119–148). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3949-6_5
   Google Scholar
• Fung, S. S. (2011). The emergence of serial verb constructions in child Cantonese (M. Phil. thesis). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
   Google Scholar
• Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. (2015). Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(33), 10336–10341. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502134112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. (2015). Quantifying word order freedom in dependency corpora. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Garnham, A. (1994). Future directions. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 1123–1144). San Diego: Academic Press.
   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. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Language, cognition, and culture (pp. 301–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2009). Early acquisition of nouns and verbs: Evidence from Navajo. In V. C. Mueller Gathercole (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 5–32). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic 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 Y. Miyashita, A.P. Marantz, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain, (pp. 95–126), Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Language & Cognitive Processes, 16(2), 313–353. doi:10.1515/cogl.2005.16.2.313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00687-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., & Wu, H.-H. I. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1/2), 125–155. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.536656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gildea, D., & Jaeger, T. F. (submitted). Language structure shaped by the brain: Human languages order information efficiently.
   Google Scholar
• Gildea, D., & Temperley, D. (2010). Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science, 34(2), 286–310. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x
   PubMed 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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gopnik, A., & Choi, S. (1995). Names, relational words, and cognitive development in English and Korean speakers: Nouns are not always learned before verbs. In M. Tomasello & W. E. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs (pp. 63–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1411–1423. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 97–114. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouvea, A., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2002, March). Relative clause processing and extraposition in Brazilian Portuguese and English. Poster presented at the 15th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
   Google Scholar
• Graff, P., & Jaeger, T. (2009). Locality and feature specificity in OCP effects: Evidence from Aymara, Dutch, and Javanese. In Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 127–141). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274–279. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grillo, N. & Costa, J. (2014). A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition, 133(1), 156–187. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez-Ziardegi, E., Carreiras, M., & Laka, I. (2004). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in Basque and Spanish. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 159–166). doi:10.3115/1073336.1073357
   Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42(1), 25–70. doi:10.1017/S0022226705003683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, M. (2009). The best-supported language universals refer to scalar patterns deriving from processing cost. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 457–458. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09990689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (2007). Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it. New Ideas in Psychology, 25(2), 87–107. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Healy, A. F., & Cutting, J. E. (1976). Units of speech perception: Phoneme and syllable. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 73–83. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(76)90008-6
   Google Scholar
• Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 293–312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, V. M., & O'Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417–430. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90533-8
   Google Scholar
• Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90(11), 3–27. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00124-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Humboldt, W. (1963). Schriften zur Sprachpfilosophie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, H., & Kaiser, E. (2015). Accessibility effects on production vary cross-linguistically: Evidence from English and Korean. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 190–204. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imai, M., Haryu, E., & Okada, H. (2005). Mapping novel nouns and verbs onto dynamic action events: Are verb meanings easier to learn than noun meanings for Japanese children?. Child development, 76(2), 340–355. j.1749-818X.2010./j.1467-8624.2005.00849_a.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849_a.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imedadze, N., & Tuite, K. (1992). The acquisition of Georgian. In D.I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. III, pp. 39–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing Japanese relative clauses in context. Paper presented at the 19th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, March 23–25, CUNY Graduate School & University Center, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Buz, E. (accepted for publication). Signal reduction and linguistic encoding. In E. M. Fernandez & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. Wiley-Black well.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Norcliffe, E. (2009). The cross-linguistic study of sentence production: State of the art and a call for action. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 866–887. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00147.x
   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. doi:10.1002/wcs.126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger, L., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Lin, C-J. C., & Vasishth, S. (2015). The subject relative advantage in Chinese: Evidence for expectation-based processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 79–80, 97–120. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, J. R., & Slobin, D. I. (1979). The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 6, 531–547. doi:10.1017/S030500090000252X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jun, S.-A. (2003). Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(2), 219–249. doi:10.1023/A:1022452408944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. (1997). Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 247–254. doi:10.1023/A:1025017817290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanno, K., & Nakamura, M. (2001). Processing of relative clauses by Japanese native speakers and L2 learners. Journal of Association for Japanese Language Education, 4, 134–148.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keenan, E. L., & Hawkins, S. (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. Universal grammar, 15, 60–85.
   Google Scholar
• Kenyeres, E. (1927). Les premiers mots de l'entfant et l'apparation des espèces de mots dans son langage. Archives de Psychologie, 20, 191–218.
   Google Scholar
• Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kgolo, N., & Eisenbeiss, S. (2015). The role of morphological structure in the processing of complex forms: Evidence from Setswana deverbative nouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1116–1133.
   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(5), 580–602. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J. & 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
• Konieczny, L. (1996). Human sentence processing: A semantics-oriented approach (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Freiburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 627–645. doi:10.1023/A:1026528912821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konieczny, L., & Döring, P. (2003). Anticipation of clause-final heads: Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Proceedings of the ICCS/ASCS-2003 joint international conference on cognitive science. Sydney, Australia 13–17 July 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Konieczny, L., & Hemforth, B. (2000). Modifier attachment in German: Relative clauses and prepositional phrases. In A. Kennedy & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 517–527). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50024-3
   Google Scholar
• Konopka, A. E., & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 68–101. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konopka, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). Priming sentence planning. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 1–40. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuchinsky, S. E. (2009). From seeing to saying: Perceiving, planning, producing (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Kuchinsky, S. E., & Bock, K. (2010, March). From seeing to saying: Perceiving, planning, producing. Paper presented at the 23rd meeting of the CUNY human sentence processing conference, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2011). Effects of individual differences in verbal skills on eye-movement patterns during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 42–73. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, N. (2008). Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language, 89(3), 537–585. doi:10.1353/lan.2013.0044
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language, 89(3), 537. doi:10.1353/lan.2013.0044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P. C., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86, 546–582. doi:10.1353/lan.2010.0006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaCross, A. (2014). Khalkha Mongolian speakers’ vowel bias: L1 influences on the acquisition of non-adjacent vocalic dependencies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1033–1047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lago, S. (2014). Memory and prediction in cross-linguistic sentence comprehension (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Law, D. (2013). Mayan Historical Linguistics in a New Age. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(3), 141–156. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12012
   Google Scholar
• Lee, D., & Kweon, S. (2004). A sentence processing study of relative clause in Korean with two attachment sites. Discourse and Cognition, 11, 126–141.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J., & Naigles, L. R. (2005). Input to verb learning in Mandarin Chinese: A role for syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology, 41, 529–540. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1975). What became of LAD. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (2013). A history of psycholinguistics: The pre-chomskyan era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2013). The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 461–495. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. & Gibson, E. (2013). Surprisal, the PDC, and the primary locus of processing difficulty in relative clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(229). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00229
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R., & Keller, F. (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 199–222. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(10), 447–454. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–489). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, C., & Bever, T. (2006, March). Chinese is no exception: Universal subject preference of relative clause processing. Paper presented at the 19th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing CUNY Graduate Center, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. & Garnsey, S. M. (2007). Plausibility and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. Poster presented at the 20th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of California, San Diego, CA, March 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Lipski, J.M. (2014). From “more” to “less”: Spanish, Palenquero (Afro-Colombian creole), and gender agreement. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1144–1155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157–201. doi:10.1080/01690969408402115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(226). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2, 581–611. doi:10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50016-X
   Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language, 53, 152–168. doi: 10.2307/413059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 315–327. doi:10.1017/S0142716400000357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1978). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: A cross-cultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(5), 539–558. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90326-2
   Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (Eds.). (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466–490. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazuka, R., & Lust, X. (1990). On parameter setting and parsing: Predictions for cross-linguistic differences in adult and child processing. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 163–205). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3808-6_7
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, D., McKee, C., Cowart, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2015). The role of the language production system in shaping grammars. Language, 91(2), 415–441. doi:10.1353/lan.2015.0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, J. L., & Heilenman, L. K. (1991). Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(3), 313–348. doi:10.1017/S0142716400009255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477–494. doi:10.3758/BF03197249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehler, J., Dommergues, J. Y., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 298–305. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90450-3
   Google Scholar
• Mehler, J., Dupoux, E., Nazzi, T., & Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (1996). Coping with linguistic diversity: The infant's viewpoint. In J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 101–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Mehler, J., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Altmann, G., Dupoux, E., Cristophe, A., & Pallier, C. (1993). Understanding compressed sentences: The role of rhythm and meaning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 682, 272–282. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb22975.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. C., & Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to recent theories of crosslinguistic variation in parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Syntax and semantics: A crosslinguistic perspective, 313–335. doi:10.1108/S0092-4563(1998)0000031019
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488. doi:10.1007/BF02143162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyamoto, E. (1999). Relative clause processing in Brazilian Portuguese and in Japanese (Ph.D. dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Miyamoto, E. T., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In G. Garding, & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL (Vol. 22, pp. 342–355).
   Google Scholar
• Morais, J., Cary, L., Algeria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323–331. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(79)90020-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., & Scheepers, C. (2010). Perceptual priming of structural choice during English and Finnish sentence production. In R. K. Mishra & N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Language & cognition: State of the art (pp. 54–72). Munich: Lincom Europa.
   Google Scholar
• Myachykov, A., Thompson, D., Scheepers, C., & Garrod, S. (2011). Visual attention and structural choice in sentence production across languages. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5, 95–107. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00265.x
   Google Scholar
• Myachykov, A., & Tomlin, R. S. (2008). Perceptual priming and structural choice in Russian sentence production. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 31–48. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44842550_Perceptual_priming_and_structural_choice_in_Russian_sentence_production
   Google Scholar
• Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2008). Distinguishing theories of syntactic expectation cost in sentence comprehension: Evidence from Japanese. Linguistics, 46(1), 63–87. doi:10.1515/LING.2008.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narasimhan, B. (2005). Splitting the notion of “agent”: Case-marking in early child Hindi. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 787–803. doi:10.1017/S0305000905007117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norcliffe, E., & Konopka, A. E. (2015). Vision and language in cross-linguistic research on sentence production. In R. K. Mishra, N. Srinivasan, & F. Huettig (Eds.), Attention and vision in language processing. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2443-3_5
   Google Scholar
• Norcliffe, E., Konopka, A. E., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1187–1208. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1006238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochs, E. (1982). Ergativity and word order in Samoan child language. Language, 58, 646–671. doi:10.2307/413852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Grady, W. D. (1997). Syntactic development. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226620787.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: On-line comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1230–1243. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.995108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pae, S. (1993). Early vocabulary in Korean: Are nouns easier to learn than verbs? (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
   Google Scholar
• Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in l1 and l2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528. doi:10.1017/s0272263103000214
   Google Scholar
• Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y., & Han, C. (2007). Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition, 103, 253–299. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, H. (1962/1931). The discovery of language: Linguistic science in the nineteenth century. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pham, H. & Baayen, H. (2015). Vietnamese compounds show an anti-frequency effect in visual lexical decision. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1077–1095.
   Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polinsky, M., Gallo Gómez, C., Graff, P., & Kravtchenko, E. (2012). Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua, 122, 267–277. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pye, C. (1990). The acquisition of ergative languages. Linguistics, 28, 1291–1330. doi:10.1515/ling.1990.28.6.1291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pye, C. (1992). The acquisition of K'iche’ (Maya). In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 221–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Qiao, X., Shen, L., & Forster, K. (2012). Relative clause processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the maze task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 611–630. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.578394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348–379. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ros, I., Santesteban, M., Fukumura, K. & Laka, I. (2014). Aiming at shorter dependencies: the role of agreement morphology. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1156–1174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santesteban, M., Pickering, M., Laka, I. & Branigan, H. (2015). Effects of case marking and head position on language production? Evidence from an ergative OV language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1175–1186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanz, M., Laka, I., & Tanenhaus, M. (2013). Sentence comprehension before and after 1970: Topics, debates and techniques. In M. Sanz, I. Laka, & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Language down the garden path: The cognitive and biological bases for linguistic structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0002
   Google Scholar
• Sauppe, S., Norcliffe, E., Konopka, A. E., Van Valin Jr, R. D., & Levinson, S. C. (2013). Dependencies first: Eye-tracking evidence from sentence production in Tagalog. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & E. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1265–1270). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Savin, H. B., & Bever, T. G. (1970). The nonperceptual reality of the phoneme. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 295–302. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80064-0
   Google Scholar
• Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kuhn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499–520. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segui, J., Frauenfelder, U., & Mehler, J. (1981). Phoneme monitoring, syllable monitoring and lexical access. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 471–477. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1981.tb01776.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sekerina, I. (2002). The Late Closure Principle vs. the Balance Principle: Evidence from On-Line Processing of Ambiguous Russian Sentences. In P. Costa & J. Frasek (Eds.), Current Approaches to Formal Slavic Linguistics. Contributions of the Second European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages FDSL II. Potsdam Meeting 1997 (pp. 205–217). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Shen, X. (2006). Late assignment of syntax theory: Evidence from Chinese and English (Ph.D. dissertation), University of Exeter.
   Google Scholar
• Sinnemäki, K. (2014). Cognitive processing, language typology, and variation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(4), 477–487. doi:10.1002/wcs.1294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (1968). Early grammatical development in several languages, with special attention to Soviet research. Technical Report No. 11. Berkeley: Language-Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (1970). Universals of grammatical development in children. In G. Flores D'Arcais & W. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics (pp.174–186). Amsterdam: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In J. Macnamara (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 185–214). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (1985). Why study language crosslinguistically? In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, the data (Vol. 1, pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (Ed.) (1985–1997). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vols. 5). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (1992). Introduction. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 1–13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–265. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(82)90033-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokolov, J. L. (1988). Cue validity in Hebrew sentence comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 15(1), 129–155. doi:10.1017/S0305000900012095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227–267. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00647-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spivey-Knowlton, M., Trueswell, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 276–309. doi:10.1037/h0078826
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinthal, H. (1871/1881). Einleitung in die Psychologie und Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: F. Dümmler.
   Google Scholar
• Stoll, S. (2009). Crosslinguistic approaches to language acquisition. In E. Bavin (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 89–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511576164.006
   Google Scholar
• Stoll, S., & Lieven, E. (2014). Studying language acquisition cross-linguistically. In H. Winskel & P. Pradakannaya (Eds.), South and Southeast Asian psycholinguistics (pp. 19–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139084642.004
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Jacovina, M. E., & Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Individual differences in the scope of speech planning: Evidence from eye-movements. Language and Cognition 6, 12–44. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2013.5
   Google Scholar
• Taman, H. A. (1993). The utilization of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues in the assignment of subject role in Arabic. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 299–317. doi:10.1017/S014271640001081X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tardif, T. (1996). Nouns are not always learned before verbs: Evidence from Mandarin speakers’ early vocabularies. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 492–504. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tardif, T., Gelman, S. A., & Xu, F. (1999). Putting the noun bias in context: A comparison of English and Mandarin. Child Development, 70(3), 620–635. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C., & Gil, M. (1999). Pragmatic constraint on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1347. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1347
   Web of Science ®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
• Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnbull, R., Burdin, R., Clopper, C., & Tonhauser, J. (2015). Contextual predictability and the prosodic realisation of focus: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1061–1076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. M. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 646–688. doi:10.1080/01690960701653501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ussishkin, A., Dawson, C., Wedel, A. & Schluter, K. (2015). Auditory masked priming in Maltese spoken word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1096–1115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1992). An overview of ergative phenomena and their implications for language acquisition. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 15–37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Velde, M., Meyer, A. S., & Konopka, A. E. (2014). Message formulation and structural assembly: Describing “easy” and “hard” events with preferred and dispreferred syntactic structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 71, 124–144. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., Chen, Z. Li, Q., & Guo, G. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE, 8(10), 1–14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., & Drenhaus, H. (2011). Locality in German. Dialogue and Discourse, 2, 59–82. doi:10.5087/dad.2011.104
   Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82(4), 767–794. doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2010). On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 423–440. doi:10.1037/a0018619
   PubMed 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
• Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker's perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 26, 347–62. doi:10.1023/A:1025080709112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberg, A. (1999). A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 282–315). Cambridge: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, S. & Ito, K. (2014). Do syllable-specific tonal probabilities guide lexical access? Evidence from Mandarin, Shanghai and Cantonese. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1048–1060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whalen, D. H., & McDonough, J. (2015). Taking the laboratory into the field. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 395–415. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wundt, W. (1920). Erlebtes und Erkanntes. Leipzig and Stuttgart: Kröner.
   Google Scholar
• Yasunaga, D., Yano, M., Yasugi, Y. & Koizumi, M. (2015). Is the subject-before-object preference universal? An ERP study in the Kaqchikel Mayan language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1209–1229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar