Cover not available
Article published In:
Epistemological issue with keynote article “The role of language processing in language acquisition” by Colin Phillips and Lara Ehrenhofer
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4] 2015
► pp. 409–453

The role of language processing in language acquisition

| Department of Linguistics, Maryland Language Science Center, University of Maryland
| Department of Linguistics, Maryland Language Science Center, University of Maryland
Language processing research is changing in two ways that should make it more relevant to the study of grammatical learning. First, grammatical phenomena are re-entering the psycholinguistic fray, and we have learned a lot in recent years about the real-time deployment of grammatical knowledge. Second, psycholinguistics is reaching more diverse populations, leading to much research on language processing in child and adult learners. We discuss three ways that language processing can be used to understand language acquisition. Level 1 approaches (“Processing in learners”) explore well-known phenomena from the adult psycholinguistic literature and document how they play out in learner populations (child learners, adult learners, bilinguals). Level 2 approaches (“Learning effects as processing effects”) use insights from adult psycholinguistics to understand the language proficiency of learners. We argue that a rich body of findings that have been attributed to the grammatical development of anaphora should instead be attributed to limitations in the learner’s language processing system. Level 3 approaches (“Explaining learning via processing”) use language processing to understand what it takes to successfully master the grammar of a language, and why different learner groups are more or less successful. We examine whether language processing may explain why some grammatical phenomena are mastered late in children but not in adult learners. We discuss the idea that children’s language learning prowess is directly caused by their processing limitations (‘less is more’: Newport, 1990). We conclude that the idea is unlikely to be correct in its original form, but that a variant of the idea has some promise (‘less is eventually more’). We lay out key research questions that need to be addressed in order to resolve the issues addressed in the paper.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language processing essentials for learners
    • 2.1Preliminaries: What we’re trying to explain
    • 2.2Accurate parsing
    • 2.3Reanalysis
    • 2.4Prediction
    • 2.5Fast and slow predictions
    • 2.6Learning relevance: Input, intake, and missed opportunities
  • 3.Level 1 accounts: Processing in learners
    • 3.1Analysis and reanalysis in children
    • 3.2Analysis and reanalysis in L2ers
    • 3.3Prediction in children
    • 3.4Prediction in L2ers
    • 3.5Summary
  • 4.Level 2 accounts: Learning effects as processing effects
    • 4.1Starting point: Universal vs. language-specific constraints on backwards anaphora
    • 4.2Principle B (pronouns) in children
    • 4.3Principle C effects in adult parsing
    • 4.4Principle A (local reflexives)
    • 4.5Principle B (pronouns) in adults
    • 4.6Russian Backwards Anaphora (again)
    • 4.7Additional antecedent effects in reconstruction (reflexives)
    • 4.8Summary: Adult on-line studies reveal the source of child errors
  • 5.Level 3 accounts: Explaining learning via processing
    • 5.1Where is language processing relevant to learning?
    • 5.2Less is more. Maybe.
    • 5.3The nature of the child advantage: When do children shine?
    • 5.4What makes the hard stuff so hard?
    • 5.5Why children shine, and how less could (eventually) be more
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi
References (195)
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstamm, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 591, 249–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aldwayan, S., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2010). Evidence of syntactic constraints in the processing of wh-movement: A study of Najdi Arabic learners of English. In B. VanPatten, & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 65–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J.M., & Lieven, E.V.M. (2014). Child language acquisition: Why Universal Grammar doesn’t help. Language: Perspectives. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax, 121, 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Ramscar, M. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 1221, 292–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, E., Simeon, K., & Omaki, A. (2013). The time course of filler-gap dependency processing in the developing parser. Poster presented at the 26th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. Columbia, S. Carolina.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., & Reuland, E. (2004). Backward anaphora and tense interpretation. In L. Verbitskaya (Ed.), Teoreticheskie problemy jazykoznanija [Theoretical issues in language research]. St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg University Press.Google Scholar
Baauw, S., Escobar, M.A., & Philip, W. (1997). A delay of Principle B effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock, & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing. Proceedings of GALA 1997. Edinburgh: HCRC.Google Scholar
Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 281, 748–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R.C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B., & Chomsky, N. (2011). Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science, 351, 1207–1242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bever, T.G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J.R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder (eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 82–105). London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., & Miller, C.A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 231, 45–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borovsky, A., Elman, J.L., & Fernald, A. (2012). Knowing a lot for one’s age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of experimental child psychology, 1121, 417–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G., & Bock, J.K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 1131, 234–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z., Jäger, L., & Vasishth, S. (2012). How structure-sensitive is the parser? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. In B. Stoltefoht, & S. Featherson (Eds.), Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies in meaning and structure (pp. 43–62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chien, Y.C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 11, 225–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J.C. (2010). Children’s (in) ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1061, 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chow, W.Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chow, W.Y., Lau, E.F., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (submitted). Timing is everything: The temporal dynamics of word prediction.
Chow, W.Y., Smith, C., Lau, E.F., & Phillips, C. (2015). A “bag of arguments” mechanism for verb prediction. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, in press.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger. Cognitive Psychology, 368–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 651, 128–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 271, 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C., Kennison, S.M., & Albrecht, J.E. (1997). Reading the words her, his, him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 361, 276–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di linguistica, 111, 11–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 401, 446–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 544–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., & McKee, C. (1985). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 15 (pp. 94–110). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Felser, C. (2013). The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 281, 188–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, M.C., Amso, D., Anderson, L.C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 441, 2037–2078. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deacon, D., Dynowska, A., Ritter, W., & Grose-Fifer, J. (2004). Repetition and semantic priming of nonwords: Implications for theories of N400 and word recognition. Psychophysiology, 411, 60–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 551, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLong, K.A., Urbach, T.P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 81, 1117–1121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J.G. (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In J. Astington & J. Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 266–297). New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J.G. & Roeper, T. (1995). Barriers, binding, and acquisition of the DP-NP distinction. Language Acquisition, 4(1–2), 73–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J.G., Roper, T., Bland-Stewart, L., & Pearson, B. (2008). Answering hard questions: wh-movement across dialects and disorder. Applied Psycholinguistics, 291, 67–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 1101, 293–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillon, B. (2014). Syntactic memory in the comprehension of reflexive dependencies: An overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 81, 171–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 691, 85–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P.E., Valdés Kroff, J.R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 351, 353–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K.M., Cutting, J.C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 1121, 531–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 333–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C. & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 553–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J.L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 481, 71–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, P.E. (2014). Children’s and adolescents’ processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity: An eye movement study. Child Development Research, 2014: Article ID 475315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedele, E., & Kaiser, E. (2014). Looking back and looking forward: Anaphora and cataphora in Italian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 201, 81–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, K.D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 441, 491–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, K.D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 469–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 331, 571–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H. (2012). The timing of island effects in non-native sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 341, 67–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferman, S., & Karni, A. (2010). No childhood advantage in the acquisition of skill in using an artificial language rule. PloS ONE, 5(10), e13648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Henderson, J.M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 301, 725–745. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N.D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11, 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischler, I., Bloom, P.A., Childers, D.G., Roucos, S.E., & Perry, N.W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 201, 400–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 91, 427–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., Martin, C.D., Moreno, E.M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 401, 1461–1469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Flores d’Arcais, G.B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 281, 331–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 681, 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-Time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 71, 55–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldowsky, B.N. & Newport, E.L. (1993). Modeling the effects of processing limitations on the acquisition of morphology: the less is more hypothesis. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th annual child language research forum, 124–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 621, 325–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goro, T. (2007). Language-specific constraints on scope interpretation in first language acquisition1. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Goro, T., & Akiba, S. (2004) The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A.J. Rodriguez, & B. Schmeiser (Eds.), WCCFL 23: Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 251–264). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Wiliams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem. Second Language Research, 281, 191–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gualmini, A. (2008). The rise and fall of Isomorphism. Lingua, 1181, 1158–1176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M.T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halgren, E., Dhond, R., Christensen, N., Petten, C., Marinkovic, K., Lewine, J., & Dale, A. (2002). N400-like Magnetoencephalography Responses Modulated by Semantic Context, Word Frequency, and Lexical Class in Sentences. NeuroImage, 1101–1116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, C.L., & Bates, E.A. (2002). Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command. Language and Cognitive Processes, 171, 237–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Helenius, P., Salmelin, R., Service, E., & Connolly, J. (1999). Semantic Cortical Activation in Dyslexic Readers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 535–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C. (1995). Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry, 261, 547–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hitzcenko, K., & Jarosz, G. (2014). Cognitive limitations impose advantageous constraints on word segmentation. Talk at the 39th Boston University Conference on Language Development. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holcomb, P., Grainger, J., & O’Rourke, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 141, 938–950. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 1201, 901–931. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 291, 33–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2015). Individual differences in the L2 processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics. Published online 11 April 2013. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.T.J. (1993). Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, 103–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y.T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 691, 589–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L.R., & Trueswell, J.C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 291, 597–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C.N., & Dussias, P.E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 121, 65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2015). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Published online January 27th, 2015. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 251, 603–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 41, 257–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamin, L.J. (1969). Predictability, attention, surprise, and conditioning. In B.A. Campbell, & R.M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 276–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, D. (1988). Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children’s knowledge of binding theory and reference relations. PhD dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Kazanina, N. (2005). The acquisition and processing of backwards anaphora. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. DOI logo
Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 561, 384–409. DOI logo
Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2001). Coreference in child Russian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints. In A. Do, L. Dominguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 413–424). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). A developmental perspective on the Imperfective Paradox. Cognition, 1051, 65–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 631, 371–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennison, S.M. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 491, 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Stewart, A.J., & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: the role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 381, 222–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kush, D., & Phillips, C. (2014). Local anaphor licensing in an SOV language: implications for retrieval strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 1252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 41, 463–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C.K., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified: 1994–2005. In M.A. Gernsbacher, & M. Traxler (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 659–724). New York: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 2071, 203–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lassotta, R., Omaki, A., & Franck, J. (submitted). Developmental changes in the misinterpretation of garden-path wh-questions in French. Ms., University of Geneva and Johns Hopkins University. DOI logo
Lau, E.F., Holcomb, P.J., & Kuperberg, G.K. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 251, 484–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, E.F., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 981, 74–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, E.F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 91, 920–933. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leddon, E. and Lidz, J. (2006). Reconstruction Effects in Child Language. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Cascadilla Press: Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, M.-W., & Williams, J.N. (2006). The role of grammatical constraints in intra-sentential pronoun resolution. Ms., Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 1061, 1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, F. (2007). Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 181, 193–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 631, 447–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, S. (2013). Pragmatic enrichment in language processing and development. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. DOI logo
Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 441, 27–46. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. (2014). Quantification and scope in child language. To appear in Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J., Waxman, S., & Freedman, J. (2003). What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learned: experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months. Cognition, 891, 295–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children’s command of quantification. Cognition, 841, 113–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lukyanenko, C., Conroy, A., & Lidz, J. (2014). Is she patting Katie? Constraints on pronominal reference in 30-month-olds. Language Learning and Development, 101, 328–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Pleh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 171, 178–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mani, N., & Huettig, F. (2012). Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake — But only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 381, 843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M., Fox, D.E., Becker, J.A., & Chalkley, M.A. (1985). Semantic restrictions on children’s passives. Cognition, 191, 167–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 271, 53–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, C.D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 574–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazuka, R., Jincho, N., & Oishi, H. (2009). Development of executive control and language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 31, 59–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition, 21, 21–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Momma, S., Sakai, H., & Phillips, C. (2015). Give me several hundred more milliseconds: The temporal dynamics of verb prediction. Talk at the 28th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 351–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, K., Marshall, C.M., & Altmann, G. (2003). Investigating individual differences in children’s real-time sentence comprehension using language-mediated eye movements. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 861, 314–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 141, 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, E.L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L.R. (1977). Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C.E. Snow, & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 109–149). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 181, 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, M.S., & Martin, A.E. (2012). If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition, 1221, 102–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novick, J.M., Trueswell, J.C., & Thompson-Schill, S.L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 51, 263–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Omaki, A. (2010). Commitment and flexibility in the developing parser. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. DOI logo
Omaki, A., Dyer, C., Malhotra, S., Sprouse, J., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2007). The time course of anaphoric processing and syntactic reconstruction. Talk at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Davidson White, I., Goro, T., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2014). No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development, 101, 206–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Omaki, A., & Lidz, J. (2014). Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition. Published online July 17th 2014. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 331, 563–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pablos, L., Ruijgrok, B., Doetjes, J., & Cheng, L.L.-S. (submitted). Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution. Ms. Leiden University.
Parker, D., & Phillips, C. (2014). Selective priority for structure in memory retrieval. Poster presentation at the 27th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2011). Early retrieval interference in syntax-guided antecedent search. Talk at the 24th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearl, L., Goldwater, S., & Steyvers, M. (2010). How ideal are we? Incorporating human limitations into Bayesian models of word segmentation. In K. Franich, K. Iserman, & L. Keil (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual Boston University Conference on Child Language Development (pp. 315–326). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearl, L., & Sprouse, J. (2013). Syntactic islands and learning biases: Combining experimental syntax and computational modeling to investigate the language acquisition problem. Language Acquisition, 201, 23–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfors, A. (2012). When do memory limitations lead to regularization? An experimental and computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 671, 486–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J.B., & Regier, T. (2011). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 1181, 306–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. (1996). Order and Structure.1996. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. DOI logo
. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 821, 795–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). On the nature of island constraints II: Language learning and innateness. In J. Sprouse, & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects (pp. 132–158). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C., & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 61, 11–47.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In G. Gaskell (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 739–756). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C., Wagers, M.W., & Lau, E.F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 371) (pp. 147–180). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 111, 105–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D.S., & Frost, L.A. (1987). Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 261, 195–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pozzan, L. & Trueswell, J.C. (2013). Online processing of English garden-path sentences by L2 learners: A visual world study. Poster presented at the 26th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.Columbia, SC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G.K. & Scholz, B.C. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 181, 9–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2007). An MEG Study of Silent Meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1905–1921. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 221, 358–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 321, 299–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, G.A. (2008). Second language sentence processing: Is it fundamentally different? PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. DOI logo
Rohde, D.L., & Plaut, D.C. (1999). Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: How important is starting small? Cognition, 721, 67–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohde, D.L.T., & Plaut, D.C. (2003). Less is less in language acquisition. In P. Quinlan (Ed.), Connectionist modelling of cognitive development (pp. 189–231). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 301, 193–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J.R. (2003). Statistical language learning mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 121, 110–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s sentence processing. In R. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence Processing (pp. 189–220). New York, New York: Psychology Press.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, 491, 238–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 491, 1114–1128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 131, 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speer, S.R., & Ito, K. (2009). Prosody in first language acquisition–Acquiring intonation as a tool to organize information in conversation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 31, 90–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staub, A., & Clifton Jr, C. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either… or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 321, 425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L.A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 31, 227–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 481, 542–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition, 1051, 477–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M.K., Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Eberhard, K.M., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 2681, 1632–1634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2012). Electrophysiological markers of interference and structural facilitation in native and nonnative agreement processing. In A.K. Biller, E.Y. Chung, & A.E. Kimball (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 594–606). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Townsend, D.J., & Bever, T.G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M.J., & Pickering, M.J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 351, 454–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J.C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N.M., & Logrip, M.L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 731, 89–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S., Gualmini, A., & Helder, C. (2008). Children’s interpretation of indefinites in sentences containing negation: A reassessment of the cross-linguistic picture. Language Acquisition, 151, 315–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urbach, T.P. & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 631, 158–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J.J. (2009). The neuropragmatics of ’simple’ utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland, & K. Yatsushiro (Ed.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–316). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J.J., Brown, C.M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 311, 443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gompel, R.P.G., & Liversedge, S.P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 291, 128–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 181, 380–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varlokosta, S. (2000). Lack of clitic-pronoun distinctions in the acquisition of Principle B in child Greek. In S.C. Howell, S.A Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 738–748). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear?. Cognition, 681, B13–B29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viau, J., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2010). Priming of abstract logical representations in 4-year-olds. Language Acquisition, 171, 26–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M.W., Lau, E.F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 611, 206–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Information structure influences depth of syntactic processing: Event-related potential evidence for the Chomsky illusion. PloS ONE, 71, e47917. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weckerly, J., Wulfeck, B., & Reilly, J. (2004). The development of morphosyntactic ability in atypical populations: The acquisition of tag questions in children with early focal lesions and children with specific-language impairment. Brain and Language, 881, 190–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weighall, A.R. (2008). The kindergarten path effect revisited: Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 991, 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 291, 761–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language, 1081, 40–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zukowski, A., McKeown, R., & Larsen, J. (2008). A tough test of the locality requirement for reflexives. In H. Chan, H. Jacob, & E. Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 586–597). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (76)

Cited by 76 other publications

Pizarro-Guevara, Jed Sam & Matthew Wagers
2024. A tale of two Tagalogs. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Presotto, Giacomo & Jacopo Torregrossa
2024. Intervention and amelioration effects in the acquisition of Spanish object relative clauses: the role of word order and DOM. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Ahn, Hyunah & Mi-Jeong Song
2023. L1-Korean speakers’ definiteness processing in L2 English: A visual world paradigm eye tracking study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 26:3 ► pp. 556 ff. DOI logo
Biondo, N., E. Pagliarini, V. Moscati, L. Rizzi & A. Belletti
2023. Features matter: the role of number and gender features during the online processing of subject- and object- relative clauses in Italian. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 38:6 ► pp. 802 ff. DOI logo
Hopp, Holger, Sarah Schimke, Freya Gastmann, David Öwerdieck & Gregory J. Poarch
2023. Processing to learn noncanonical word orders: Exploring linguistic and cognitive predictors of reanalysis in early L2 sentence comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Klassen, Gabrielle, Aline Ferreira & John W. Schwieter
2023. The role of immersion learning in the acquisition and processing of L2 gender agreement. Applied Linguistics Review 14:2 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Luque, Alicia, Eleonora Rossi, Maki Kubota, Megan Nakamura, César Rosales, Cristina López-Rojas, Yulia Rodina & Jason Rothman
2023. Morphological transparency and markedness matter in heritage speaker gender processing: an EEG study. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
O’Grady, William & Miseon Lee
2023. Natural Syntax, Artificial Intelligence and Language Acquisition. Information 14:7 ► pp. 418 ff. DOI logo
Torregrossa, Jacopo, Sonja Eisenbeiß & Christiane Bongartz
2023. Boosting Bilingual Metalinguistic Awareness Under Dual Language Activation: Some Implications for Bilingual Education. Language Learning 73:3 ► pp. 683 ff. DOI logo
Ahn, Hyunah
2022. L2 PROCESSING OF LINGUISTIC AND NONLINGUISTIC INFORMATION. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:2 ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo
Bovolenta, Giulia & Emma Marsden
2022. PREDICTION AND ERROR-BASED LEARNING IN L2 PROCESSING AND ACQUISITION. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:5 ► pp. 1384 ff. DOI logo
Bovolenta, Giulia & Emma Marsden
2024. The effect of verb surprisal on the acquisition of second language syntactic structures in adults: An artificial language learning study. Applied Psycholinguistics 45:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
CALLEJA, E. Javier & Brenda QUACH
2022. TAREAS COMUNITARIAS COMO MODELO PARA EL DESARROLLO LINGÜÍSTICO DE ESTUDIANTES DE ESPAÑOL COMO LENGUA MATERNA Y LENGUA EXTRANJERA. Alfa: Revista de Linguística (São José do Rio Preto) 66 DOI logo
CALLEJA, E. Javier & Brenda QUACH
2022. SERVICE LEARNING AS A MODEL FOR LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS OF SPANISH AS A HERITAGE LANGUAGE AND AS A FOREING LANGUAGE. Alfa: Revista de Linguística (São José do Rio Preto) 66 DOI logo
Henry, Nick, Carrie N Jackson & Holger Hopp
2022. Cue coalitions and additivity in predictive processing: The interaction between case and prosody in L2 German. Second Language Research 38:3 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Hestvik, Arild, Baila Epstein, Richard G. Schwartz & Valerie L. Shafer
2022. Developmental Language Disorder as Syntactic Prediction Impairment. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Katsika, Kalliopi, Maria Lialiou & Shanley E.M. Allen
2022. The Influence of Case and Word Order in Child and Adult Processing of Relative Clauses in Greek. Languages 7:3 ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
Pereira Soares, Sergio Miguel, Tanja Kupisch & Jason Rothman
2022. Testing Potential Transfer Effects in Heritage and Adult L2 Bilinguals Acquiring a Mini Grammar as an Additional Language: An ERP Approach. Brain Sciences 12:5 ► pp. 669 ff. DOI logo
Reuter, Tracy, Mia Sullivan & Casey Lew-Williams
2022. Look at that: Spatial deixis reveals experience-related differences in prediction. Language Acquisition 29:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Xia, Vera Yunxiao, Lydia White & Natália Brambatti Guzzo
2022. Intervention in relative clauses: Effects of relativized minimality on L2 representation and processing. Second Language Research 38:2 ► pp. 347 ff. DOI logo
Alemán Bañón, José & Clara Martin
2021. The role of crosslinguistic differences in second language anticipatory processing: An event-related potentials study. Neuropsychologia 155 ► pp. 107797 ff. DOI logo
Brunetto, Valentina
2021. Chapter 1. Processing clitic pronouns outside coargumenthood. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 357], ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Fernandez, Claudia
2021. Chapter 8. Trials-to-criterion as a methodological option to measure language processing in processing instruction. In Research on Second Language Processing and Processing Instruction [Studies in Bilingualism, 62], ► pp. 236 ff. DOI logo
Garcia, Rowena, Gabriela Garrido Rodriguez & Evan Kidd
2021. Developmental effects in the online use of morphosyntactic cues in sentence processing: Evidence from Tagalog. Cognition 216 ► pp. 104859 ff. DOI logo
Kaan, Edith & Theres Grüter
2021. Chapter 1. Prediction in second language processing and learning. In Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 12], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Lago, Sol, Michela Mosca & Anna Stutter Garcia
2021. The Role of Crosslinguistic Influence in Multilingual Processing: Lexicon Versus Syntax. Language Learning 71:S1 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Phillips, Colin, Phoebe Gaston, Nick Huang & Hanna Muller
2021. Theories All the Way Down. In The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax, ► pp. 587 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Hanbo & Jie Liu
2021. Subject Filled-gap Effects: A Self-paced Reading Study with Mandarin Learners of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50:5 ► pp. 1049 ff. DOI logo
de Villiers, Jill, Jessica Kotfila & Tom Roeper
2020. When Is Recursion Easier for Children?. In New Trends in Language Acquisition Within the Generative Perspective [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 49], ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Jackson, Carrie
2020. Second Language Acquisition of Germanic Languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, ► pp. 689 ff. DOI logo
Jackson, Carrie N. & Holger Hopp
2020. Prediction error and implicit learning in L1 and L2 syntactic priming. International Journal of Bilingualism 24:5-6 ► pp. 895 ff. DOI logo
Jegerski, Jill & Irina A. Sekerina
2020. The processing of input with differential object marking by heritage Spanish speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23:2 ► pp. 274 ff. DOI logo
Montero-Melis, Guillermo & T. Florian Jaeger
2020. Changing expectations mediate adaptation in L2 production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23:3 ► pp. 602 ff. DOI logo
Slabakova, Roumyana, Tania Leal, Amber Dudley & Micah Stack
2020. Generative Second Language Acquisition, DOI logo
Barrière, Isabelle, Sarah Kresh, Katsiaryna Aharodnik, Géraldine Legendre & Thierry Nazzi
2019. The comprehension of 3rd person singular -s by NYC English-speaking preschoolers. In Three Streams of Generative Language Acquisition Research [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 63], ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
de Villiers, Jill G., Jessica Kotfila & Madeline Klein
2019. Parsing, pragmatics, and representation. In Three Streams of Generative Language Acquisition Research [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 63], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
DeLuca, Vincent, David Miller, Christos Pliatsikas & Jason Rothman
2019. Brain Adaptations and Neurological Indices of Processing in Adult Second Language Acquisition. In The Handbook of the Neuroscience of Multilingualism, ► pp. 170 ff. DOI logo
Dijkgraaf, Aster, Robert J. Hartsuiker & Wouter Duyck
2019. Prediction and integration of semantics during L2 and L1 listening. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34:7 ► pp. 881 ff. DOI logo
Felser, Claudia
2019. Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing. Journal of the European Second Language Association 3:1 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Lago, Sol, Martina Gračanin-Yuksek, Duygu Fatma Şafak, Orhan Demir, Bilal Kırkıcı & Claudia Felser
2019.  Straight from the horse’s mouth . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9:3 ► pp. 398 ff. DOI logo
Lago, Sol, Anna Stutter Garcia & Claudia Felser
2019. The role of native and non-native grammars in the comprehension of possessive pronouns. Second Language Research 35:3 ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo
Ambridge, Ben, Libby Barak, Elizabeth Wonnacott, Colin Bannard, Giovanni Sala, Rolf Zwaan & Fernanda Ferreira
2018. Effects of Both Preemption and Entrenchment in the Retreat from Verb Overgeneralization Errors: Four Reanalyses, an Extended Replication, and a Meta-Analytic Synthesis. Collabra: Psychology 4:1 DOI logo
Green, Kieran & John W. Schwieter
2018. Using more native-like language acquisition processes in the foreign language classroom. Cogent Education 5:1 ► pp. 1429134 ff. DOI logo
Guasti, Maria Teresa, Mirta Vernice & Julie Franck
2018. Continuity in the Adult and Children’s Comprehension of Subject and Object Relative Clauses in French and Italian. Languages 3:3 ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Hopp, Holger & Natalia Lemmerth
2018. LEXICAL AND SYNTACTIC CONGRUENCY IN L2 PREDICTIVE GENDER PROCESSING. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:1 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
MARSDEN, EMMA, SOPHIE THOMPSON & LUKE PLONSKY
2018. A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics 39:5 ► pp. 861 ff. DOI logo
Rothman, Jason & Roumyana Slabakova
2018. THE GENERATIVE APPROACH TO SLA AND ITS PLACE IN MODERN SECOND LANGUAGE STUDIES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:2 ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
CUNNINGS, IAN
2017. Interference in Native and Non-Native Sentence Processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20:4 ► pp. 712 ff. DOI logo
Henry, Nick, Holger Hopp & Carrie N. Jackson
2017. Cue additivity and adaptivity in predictive processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32:10 ► pp. 1229 ff. DOI logo
Johnson Fowler, Courtney & Carrie N. Jackson
2017. Facilitating morphosyntactic and semantic prediction among second language speakers of German. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 29:8 ► pp. 883 ff. DOI logo
Joo, Kum-Jeong
2017. Children’s interpretation of the Korean reflexive pronounscakiandcaki-casin. Language Acquisition 24:4 ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
McManus, Kevin & Emma Marsden
2017. L1 EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION CAN IMPROVE L2 ONLINE AND OFFLINE PERFORMANCE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39:3 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
OMAKI, AKIRA
2017. Linking learning and parsing in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20:4 ► pp. 706 ff. DOI logo
PÉREZ-LEROUX, ANA T.
2017. The untouchables. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Schremm, Andrea, Anna Hed, Merle Horne & Mikael Roll
2017. Training predictive L2 processing with a digital game: Prototype promotes acquisition of anticipatory use of tone-suffix associations. Computers & Education 114 ► pp. 206 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Shin, Gyu-Ho
2022. Awareness is one thing and mastery is another: Korean-speaking children’s comprehension of a suffixal passive construction in Korean. Cognitive Development 62 ► pp. 101184 ff. DOI logo
Shin, Gyu-Ho
2024. Good-enough processing, home language proficiency, cognitive skills, and task effects for Korean heritage speakers’ sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
de Villiers, Jill
2015.  Parsing and grammar. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
DeKeyser, Robert
2015.  Why less is eventually more in second language acquisition . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 454 ff. DOI logo
Foucart, Alice
2015.  Prediction is a question of experience . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 465 ff. DOI logo
Foucart, Alice
2021. Chapter 5. Language prediction in second language. In Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 12], ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Gabriele, Alison, Robert D. Fiorentino & Adrienne Johnson
2015.  Attentional control and prediction in native and non-native speakers . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 470 ff. DOI logo
Hopp, Holger
2015.  Differential learning of prediction. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 476 ff. DOI logo
Hopp, Holger
2016. Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 32:2 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Hopp, Holger
2020. Morphosyntactic adaptation in adult L2 processing: Exposure and the processing of case and tense violations. Applied Psycholinguistics 41:3 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo
Hopp, Holger
2021. Chapter 8. Prediction and grammatical learning in second language sentence processing. In Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 12], ► pp. 168 ff. DOI logo
Hopp, Holger
2022. Second Language Sentence Processing. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Kaan, Edith
2015.  Knowing without predicting, predicting without learning. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 482 ff. DOI logo
Kidd, Evan
2015. Incorporating learning into theories of parsing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 487 ff. DOI logo
Lew-Williams, Casey
2015.  Infants’ history of distributional learning in real time . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 494 ff. DOI logo
Pozzan, Lucia & John C. Trueswell
2015.  Syntactic processing and acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 516 ff. DOI logo
Schaeffer, Jeannette
2015.  On the link between complex predictive abilities and memory in language acquisition . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 522 ff. DOI logo
Sekerina, Irina A.
2015.  Predictions, fast and slow . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 532 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Michael Sharwood
2015.  On virtual versus real spatio-temporal explanations of linguistic development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 537 ff. DOI logo
Westergaard, Marit
2015.  Complexity in child and adult language acquisition . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 541 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. 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.