Do you what I say? People reconstruct the syntax of anomalous utterances

References

• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487. doi:10.3758/BF03197179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Child language: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernolet, S., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114, 455–461. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 931–949. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112, 300–317. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90022-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(89)90022-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123–147. doi:10.1177/00238309010440020101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Cleland, A. A. (2007). Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue. Cognition, 104, 163–197. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251–283. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunger, A., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Event structure influences language production: Evidence from structural priming in motion event description. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 299–323. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2012). Mapping concepts to syntax: Evidence from structural priming in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 833–849. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., & Sturt, P. (2013). Processing verb-phrase ellipsis in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence against the syntactic account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 810–828. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.665932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., Yan, H., & Branigan, H. P. (2011). Lexical and syntactic representations in closely related languages: Evidence from Cantonese–Mandarin bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 431–445. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Baumann, M., Pappert, S., & Fitz, H. (2015). Do lemmas speak German? A verb position effect in German structural priming. Cognitive Science, 39, 1113–1130. doi:10.1111/cogs.12184
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Bock, J. K., & Goldberg, A. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90, 29–49. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00123-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 185–198. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A., Pickering, M. J., & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 528–556. doi:10.1080/01690960801920545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G.S., & Chang, F. (2014). The P-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634). doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Bailey, K. G. (2004). Disfluencies and human language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 231–237. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Lau, E. F., & Bailey, K. G. (2004). Disfluencies, language comprehension, and tree adjoining grammars. Cognitive Science, 28, 721–749. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434. doi:10.1007/BF02143947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:10.3758/BF03195503
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 8051–8056. doi:10.1073/pnas.1216438110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 365–399. doi:10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, J., Pickering, M. J., Yang, J., Wang, S., & Branigan, H. P. (2016). The independence of syntactic processing in Mandarin: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 81–98. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanova, I., & Ferreira, V. S. (2014). Structural alignment is greater in dialogue than in monologue. Poster presented at the 20th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Edinburgh, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanova, I., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Costa, A. (2012). The comprehension of anomalous sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 122, 193–209. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanova, I., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., Costa, A., & Branigan, H. P. (2012). How do people produce ungrammatical utterances? Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 355–370. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. E. (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, 57–83. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaschak, M. P. (2007). Long-term structural priming affects subsequent patterns of language production. Memory & Cognition, 35, 925–937. doi:10.3758/BF03193466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaschak, M. P., & Borreggine, K. L. (2008). Is long-term structural priming affected by patterns of experience with individual verbs? Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 862–878. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205. doi:10.1126/science.7350657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory & Cognition, 11, 539–550. doi:10.3758/BF03196991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J., & Cutler, A. (1983). Prosodic marking in speech repair. Journal of Semantics, 2, 205–218. doi:10.1093/semant/2.2.205
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008a). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008b). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 234–243). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21086–21090. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907664106
   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
• Melinger, A., & Dobel, C. (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98, B11–B20. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Sorace, A. (2012). Is young children’s passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 568–587. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165. doi:10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2592
   Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–225. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramshaw, L. A., & Marcus, M. P. (1995). Text chunking using transformation-based learning. In D. Yarovsky & K. Church (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd workshop on very large corpora (pp. 82–94). Somerset, NJ: Association of Computing and Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Reitter, D., & Moore, J. D. (2014). Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 29–46. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2006). Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 299–307. doi:10.1017/S1366728906002641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuel, A. G. (1997). Lexical activation produces potent phonemic percepts. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 97–127. doi:10.1006/cogp.1997.0646
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190. doi:10.1080/01638539809545043
   Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89, 179–205. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00119-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slevc, L. R., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). To err is human; to structurally prime from errors is also human. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 985–992. doi:10.1037/a0029525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slevc, L. R., & Momma, S. (2015). Noisy evidence and plausibility influence structural priming. Poster presented at the 21st Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Valletta, Malta.
   Google Scholar
• Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 238–299. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.03.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136–150. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szmrecsanyi, B. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1, 113–150. doi:10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 605–611. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001
   PubMed 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
• Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 683–692. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80027-3
   Google Scholar
• Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–362. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C., & Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 591–597. doi:10.1080/14640747908400750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar