Speakers balance their use of cues to grammatical functions in informative discourse contexts

References

• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Asudeh, A., & Alrenga, P. (2004). Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of word ordering. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (2010). Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale, 120(3), 717–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., Dell, G., Chang, F., & Onishi, K. (2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104(3), 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Irwin, D. E. (1980). Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90321-7
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formation. Cognition, 21(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohnacker, U. (2010). The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 33(02), 105–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S033258651000017X
   Google Scholar
• Bohnacker, U., & Rosén, C. (2008). The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives: Transfer of information structure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(04), 511–538. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080741
   Google Scholar
• Bohnacker, U., & Rosén, C. (2009). Fundamentet i svenskan och tyskan-syntax och informationsstruktur: Ett problemområde för språkinlärning och undervisning. Språk & Stil, 19, 142–171.
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouma, G. J. (2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), B13–B25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5
   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(2), 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The role of local and global syntactic structure in language production: Evidence from syntactic priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 974–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600824609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale, 118(2), 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. J. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwartz (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam.
   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(3), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, L. K., Jaeger, T. F., Housel, K., Gómez Gallo, C., Lemieux, A., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2010, March). Psycholinguistics in the field: Accessibility-driven production in Yukatek Maya [Paper presentation].23rd CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Buz, E., Jaeger, T. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Contextual confusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36, 1970–1975. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7ph8539f
   Google Scholar
• Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caplan, S., Kodner, J., & Yang, C. (2020). Miller’s monkey updated: Communicative efficiency and the statistics of words in natural language. Cognition, 205, 104466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbary, K. M., Frohning, E. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). Context. Syntactic priming, and referential form in an interactive dialogue task: Implications for models of alignment. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32, 109–114. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5hm4j7wj
   Google Scholar
• Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K.. (2011). Conceptual pacts, syntactic priming, and referential form. In K. van Demeeter, A. Gatt, R. Van Gompel, & E. Krahmer (Eds.), Proceedings of the CogSci workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the Gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference (PRE-CogSci 2011). https://pre2011.uvt.nl/pdf/carbary-6pgs-wksp-2011.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Janciauskas, M., & Fitz, H. (2012). Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning: Language adaptation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(5), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.337
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, Ö. (2000). Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language, 7(1), 37–77. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, Ö, & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–87). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Feleki, E., & Branigan, H. (1999). Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek speech production. In M. Hahn, & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 96–101). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 49, 209–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00006-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Bock, J. K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 1011–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600824609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40(4), 296–340. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Yoshita, H. (2003). Given-New ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(6), 669–692. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026146332132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley, W. A. (2011). A typology of information packaging in the clause. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Vol. Volume 1:Clause structure (pp. 362–446). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91(4), 1357–1392. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00006.2011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A. (2006). Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper). Bayesian Analysis, 1(3), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1214/06-BA117A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., Jakulin, A., Pittau, M. G., & Su, Y.-S. (2008). A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(4), 1360–1383. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS191
   Web of Science ®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(2), 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., & Brilleman, Ali I. (2020). rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan. R package version 2.21.1. https://mc-stan.org/rstanarm
   Google Scholar
• Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 174–196). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/416535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(2), 143–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099804100202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartsuiker, R. J., & Westenberg, C. (2000). Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75(2), B27–B39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00080-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haupt, F. S., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., Friederici, A. D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 54–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. (2003). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haywood, S. L., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue? Psychological Science, 16(5), 362–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01541.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörberg, T. (2016). Probabilistic and prominence-driven incremental argument interpretation in Swedish [Doctoral dissertation]. Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. https://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:924838/FULLTEXT01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hörberg, T. (2018). Functional motivations behind direct object fronting in written Swedish: A corpus-distributional account. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörberg, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2021). A rational model of incremental argument interpretation: The comprehension of Swedish transitive clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(674202), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674202
   Google Scholar
• Hörberg, T., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., & Kallioinen, P. (2013). The neurophysiological correlate to grammatical function reanalysis in Swedish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 388–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.651345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and reduction in spontaneous speech [Doctoral dissertation]. Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: Information density and reducible subject relatives. In E. M. Bender, & J. E. Arnold (Eds.), Language from a cognitive perspective: Grammar, usage and processing. Studies in honor of Tom Wasow (pp. 161–198). CSLI Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Buz, E. (2018). Signal reduction and linguistic encoding. In E. M. Fernández & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (1st ed., pp. 38–81). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch3
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Norcliffe, E. J. (2009). The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(4), 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00147.x
   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(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jörgensen, N. (1976). Meningsbyggnaden i talad svenska [Doctoral dissertation]. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Josefsson, G. (2012). What’s first? On the left periphery in Swedish declaratives. In J. Brandtler, D. Håkansson, S. Huber, & E. Klingvall (Eds.), Discourse & grammar: A festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár (pp. 359–372). Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Kantola, L., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). Between- and within-language priming is the same: Evidence for shared bilingual syntactic representations. Memory & Cognition, 39(2), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0016-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaschak, M. P. (2007). Long-term structural priming affects subsequent patterns of language production. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 925–937. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaschak, M. P., Loney, R. A., & Borreggine, K. L. (2006). Recent experience affects the strength of structural priming. Cognition, 99(3), B73–B82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K.. (2004). A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. In T. Pechmann & C. Habel (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production (pp. 173–182). De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Poulsen, M. (2014). Context improves comprehension of fronted objects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-013-9241-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Wallentin, M. (2014). Context predicts word order processing in Broca’s region. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(12), 2762–2777. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00681
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruschke, J. K. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 152–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1971). If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In C. J. Fillmore & T. D. Langėndoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 114–149). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Lamers, M. J. A., & de Hoop, H. (2014). Animate object fronting in Dutch: A production study. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 42–53). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0003
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H. (2006). Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-005-3004-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. (2007). Case ellipsis at the grammar/pragmatics interface: A formal analysis from a typological perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), 1465–1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W., & Maassen, B. (1981). Lexical search and order of mention in sentence production. In W. Klein & W. Levelt (Eds.), Crossing the boundaries in linguistics (pp. 221–252). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8453-0_12
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowski, D., Kurowicka, D., & Joe, H. (2009). Generating random correlation matrices based on vines and extended onion method. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100(9), 1989–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2009.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(226). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 10(4), 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   Google Scholar
• Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188–230. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norcliffe, E., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Predicting head-marking variability in Yucatec Maya relative clause production. Language and Cognition, 8(2), 167–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.39
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øvrelid, L. (2004). Disambiguation of syntactic functions in Norwegian: Modeling variation in word order interpretations conditioned by animacy and definiteness. In Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian conference of linguistics (pp. 1–17). http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/Ovrelid.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). Psychopy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
   PubMed 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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012551108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
   PubMed 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(4), 633–651. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prat-Sala, M., & Branigan, H. P. (2000). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahkonen, M. (2006). Some aspects of topicalization in Swedish declaratives. Linguistics, 44(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Reitter, D., Keller, F., & Moore, J. D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35(4), 587–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01165.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roland, D., Elman, J. L., & Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition, 98(3), 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sæbø, K. J. (2003). Presupposition and contrast: German aber as a topic particle. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of sub7 – Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 7, pp. 257–271). FB Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.
   Google Scholar
• Schoot, L., Menenti, L., Hagoort, P., & Segaert, K. (2014). A little more conversation—The influence of communicative context on syntactic priming in brain and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(208), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00208
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (2004). Horizontal information flow in spoken sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.675
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, Y., & Lai, R. K. Y. (2021). Syntactic representations encode grammatical functions: Evidence from the priming of mapping between grammatical functions and thematic roles in Cantonese. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(10), 1329–1342. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1942086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stan Development Team. (2017). Stan modeling language: User’s guide and reference manual (2.17.0). mc-stan.org.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, M. N., Branigan, H., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). The role of animacy in Japanese sentence production [Paper presentation] 18th CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tuscon, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, M. N., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska akademiens grammatik (1st ed.). Svenska Akademien.
   Google Scholar
• Teleman, U., & Wieselgren, A. M. (1988). ABC i stilistik. LiberFörlag.
   Google Scholar
• Temperley, D. (2003). Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language, 79(3), 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Bergen, G. (2009). Placing objects before subjects in Dutch: A comparison between word order variation in experimental and natural sentence production. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 26, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.26.03ber
   Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Arai, M., & Pearson, J. (2012). The representation of mono- and intransitive structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(2), 384–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Nice, K. Y., & Dietrich, R. (2003). Task sensitivity of animacy effects: Evidence from German picture descriptions. Linguistics, 41(5), 825–849. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernice, M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Thematic emphasis in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(5), 631–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.572468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wälchli, B. (under review). The interplay of contrast connectives (‘but’), selectives (“topic markers”) and word order in the fuzzy opposite contrast domain.
   Google Scholar
• Wasow, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Orr, D. M. (2011). Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In H. J. Simon, & H. Wiese (Eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (pp. 175–195). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219098.175
   Google Scholar
• Wasow, T., Perfors, A., & Beaver, D. (2005). The puzzle of ambiguity. In O. Orgun & P. Sells (Eds.), Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe (pp. 265–282).
   Google Scholar
• Westman, M. (1974). Bruksprosa. Liber Läromedel.
   Google Scholar