References

References

Akhtar, N.
(1999) Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 26, 339–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E.
(2011) Child language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
(1987) Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1988) What is functionalism? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 27, 137–152.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J.
2005Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22, 381–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cai, Z., Patrick, S., & Pickering, M.
(2012) The effect of non-adopted analyses on sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 27, 1286–1311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D., & Waters, G.
(1999) Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 77–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S.
(1978) The child as word learner. In J. Bresnan, G. Miller, & M. Halled (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 264–293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.[ p. 281 ]Google Scholar
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
(2009) Children’s understanding of the agent–patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics 20, 267–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G., & Bock, K.
(2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113, 234–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N., & Manning, C.
(2006) Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science 10, 335–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H.
(2008) Behavioral methods for investigating morphological and syntactic processing in children. In I. Sekerina, E. Fernández, & H. Clahsen (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children’s language processing (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. & Khlentzos, D.
(2008) Is logic innate? Biolinguistics 2, 24–56.Google Scholar
Darwin, C.
(1874/1922) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. 2nd ed. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dryer, M.
(1992) The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68, 81–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A, Thorpe, K., & Marchman, V.
(2010) Blue car, red car: Developing efficiency in online interpretation of adjective-noun phrases. Cognitive Psychology 60, 190–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F.
(2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47, 164–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitz, H, Chang, F., & Christiansen, M.
(2011) A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In E. Kidd (Ed.), Trends in language acquisition (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.D.
(1978) Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 427–473.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., & Ferreira, F.
(1998) Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Millotte, S., & Lassotta, R.
(2011) Early word order representations: Novel arguments against old contradictions. Language Acquisition 18, 121–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J.D.
(1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6, 291–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.
(1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E.
(2005) Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29, 261–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, H.-R.
(2000) UG availability of Korean EFL learners: A longitudinal study of different age groups. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of English, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J.
(2007) V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.
(2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, J.
(2009) Fundamental and gradient differences in language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 259–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H.
(2010) Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between nonnative and native speakers. Lingua 120, 901–931. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T.F., & Tily, H.
(2011) On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2, 323–335.[ p. 282 ]Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M.
(1995) Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 483–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D.
(2003) Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In R. Bod, J. Hayy, & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 39–95). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Just, M., & Carpenter, P.
(1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99, 122–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D.
(2001) Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kidd, E.
(2012) Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology 48, 171–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H.-J.
(2007) Acquisition of scope interaction of universal quantifiers and negation in Korean-English bilingual children. Available from http://​www​.linguistics​.stonybrook​.edu​/sites​/default​/files​/uploads​/u37​/fiers​_and​_Negation​_in​_Korean​_final​__11​_20​_07​.pdf Google Scholar
Kimball, J.
(1973) Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2, 15–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, K.
(2002) The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kwak, H.-Y.
(2010) Scope interpretation in first and second language acquisition: Numeral quantifiers and negation. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Lee, M., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, S., & O’Grady, W.
(2011) In H. Sohn, H. Cook, W. O’Grady, L. Serafim, & S. Cheon (Eds.), Processing, pragmatics, and scope in Korean and English. To appear in the Proceedings of the 19th Japanese-Korean Linguistics Conference (pp. 297–311). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Lee, S.
(2009) Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifiers and negation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Lewis, R, Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J.
(2006) Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10, 447–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J.
(2002) Children’s command of quantification. Cognition 84, 113–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
(2008) Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson, & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L.
(2003) Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 67–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(1987) The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Matthews D, Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M.
(2005) The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development, 20, 121–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menn, L.
(2000) Let’s face a simple question: Why is canonical form simple? Brain and Language 71, 157–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J., Crain, S., & Thornton, R.
(2000) Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 38, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J.
(2006) Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44, 817–852. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W.
(2005) Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2008) The emergentist program. Lingua, 118, 447–464.[ p. 283 ] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) An emergentist approach to syntax. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 257–283). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In E. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, M., & Lee, O.-S.
(2011) An emergentist perspective on partial language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 323–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., & Kwak, H.-Y.
(2009) Emergentism and second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 69–88). Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, M.
(2004) A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, M.-S.
(1997) A study on the English verb pattern acquisition process of Korean students. M.A. thesis, Department of English Education, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(2005) An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Crosslinguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C.
(2011) Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 32, 299–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J.
(2010) The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua 120, 2022–2039. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R.K.
(2003) Emergence in creativity and development. In R. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. Sternberg, D. Feldman, H. Gardner, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity and development (pp. 12–59). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M., & MacDonald, M.
(1999) A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23, 569–588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Song, H.-J., & Fisher, C.
(2007) Discourse prominence effects on 2.5-year-old children’s interpretation of pronouns. Lingua 117, 1959–1987. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M.
(2000) The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sturt, P.
(2007) Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition 105, 477–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P., Pickering, M., Scheepers, C., & Crocker, M.
(2001) The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort? Journal of Memory and Language 45, 283–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., & Newport, E.
(2007) Statistical learning of syntax: The role of transitional probability. Language Learning and Development 3, 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, D., & Bever, T.
(2001) Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I., Hill, N., & Logrip, M.
(1999) The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood-Smith, M.
(2004) Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werker, J., Lloyd, V., Pegg, J., & Polka, L.
(1996) Putting the baby in the bootstraps: Toward a more complete understanding of the role of the input in infant speech processing. In J. Morgan, & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax (pp. 427–447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L.
(2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambrige University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C.
(2004) Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Science 8, 451–456.[ p. 284 ] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 29 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Input Processing and Processing Instruction [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 11],  pp. 111 ff. Crossref logo
Chater, Nick & Morten H Christiansen
2018. Language acquisition as skill learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 21  pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo
Chater, Nick & Morten H. Christiansen
2016. Squeezing through the Now-or-Never bottleneck: Reconnecting language processing, acquisition, change, and structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 Crossref logo
Chater, Nick, Stewart M. McCauley & Morten H. Christiansen
2016. Language as skill: Intertwining comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 89  pp. 244 ff. Crossref logo
Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater
2016. The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 Crossref logo
Eghbaria-Ghanamah, Hazar, Rafat Ghanamah, Yasmin Shalhoub-Awwad & Avi Karni
2021. Recitation as a structured intervention to enhance the long-term verbatim retention and gist recall of complex texts in kindergarteners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 203  pp. 105054 ff. Crossref logo
Jo, Kyuhee, Kitaek Kim & Hyunwoo Kim
2021. Children's interpretation of negation and quantifier scope in L3 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24:3  pp. 427 ff. Crossref logo
Kempson, Ruth, Ronnie Cann, Eleni Gregoromichelaki & Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
2016. Language as Mechanisms for Interaction. Theoretical Linguistics 42:3-4 Crossref logo
Lau, Elaine
2016. The role of resumptive pronouns in Cantonese relative clause acquisition. First Language 36:4  pp. 355 ff. Crossref logo
McManus, Kevin
2021. Examining the effectiveness of language-switching practice for reducing cross-language competition in L2 grammatical processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24:1  pp. 167 ff. Crossref logo
McManus, Kevin & Emma Marsden
2018. ONLINE AND OFFLINE EFFECTS OF L1 PRACTICE IN L2 GRAMMAR LEARNING. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:2  pp. 459 ff. Crossref logo
MCMANUS, KEVIN & EMMA MARSDEN
2019. Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 40:1  pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo
MCMANUS, KEVIN & EMMA MARSDEN
2019. Using Explicit Instruction About L1 to Reduce Crosslinguistic Effects in L2 Grammar Learning: Evidence From Oral Production in L2 French. The Modern Language Journal 103:2  pp. 459 ff. Crossref logo
O'Grady, William
2015.  In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,  pp. 313 ff. Crossref logo
O'Grady, William
2015.  In The Handbook of Language Emergence,  pp. 100 ff. Crossref logo
O'GRADY, WILLIAM
2015. Frequency effects and processing. Journal of Child Language 42:2  pp. 294 ff. Crossref logo
O'Grady, William
2015. Processing Determinism. Language Learning 65:1  pp. 6 ff. Crossref logo
O'Grady, William
2016. Processing cost and its consequences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 Crossref logo
O'Grady, William & Myong Hee Choi
2015.  In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics,  pp. 355 ff. Crossref logo
Rothman, Jason, Jorge González Alonso & Eloi Puig-Mayenco
2019.  In Third Language Acquisition and Linguistic Transfer, Crossref logo
Shin, Gyu-Ho
2017. Developmental aspects of English argument structure constructions for Korean-speaking second language learners: Usage-based constructional approaches to language development. Ampersand 4  pp. 10 ff. Crossref logo
Sperlich, Darcy
2020.  In Reflexive Pronouns: A Theoretical and Experimental Synthesis [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 8],  pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Sperlich, Darcy
2020.  In Reflexive Pronouns: A Theoretical and Experimental Synthesis [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 8],  pp. 97 ff. Crossref logo
Sperlich, Darcy
2020.  In Reflexive Pronouns: A Theoretical and Experimental Synthesis [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 8],  pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
TREFFERS-DALLER, JEANINE, MICHAEL DALLER, REYHAN FURMAN & JASON ROTHMAN
2016. Ultimate attainment in the use of collocations among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany and Turkish–German returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19:3  pp. 504 ff. Crossref logo
UNSWORTH, SHARON
2016. Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or both?. Journal of Child Language 43:3  pp. 608 ff. Crossref logo
Vainio, Seppo, Anneli Pajunen & Jukka Hyönä
2016. Processing modifier–head agreement in L1 and L2 Finnish: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research 32:1  pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
곽혜영
2017. A Study of Korean Speakers’ Interpretive Patterns for Korean Sentences Containing the Universal Quantifier motun and Long-Form Negation with the Particle –nun. The Journal of Korean Studies null:60  pp. 171 ff. Crossref logo
김소영 & 곽혜영
2018. Study on Korean EFL learners’ interpretive preferences in the comprehension of English sentences containing numeral quantifiers and negation in a neutral context.. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18:4  pp. 535 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.