Cover not available

In:Theoretical Issues in Second Language Research: Challenges and new directions
Edited by Junya Fukuta, John Matthews and Shigenori Wakabayashi
[Studies in Bilingualism 69] 2026
► pp. 100–124

Chapter 5
Chronological and critical review of sentence comprehension studies

 | Chukyo University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of real-time sentence comprehension studies, with a focus on the relationship between linguistic theory (grammar) and the language processing system (parser). It explores how research in the cognitive science of language has gone beyond descriptive generalizations to engage with the underlying processing mechanisms. We first clarify the aim of sentence comprehension studies by mapping various subfields of linguistic research onto Marr (2010)’s three levels of analysis. Then, we see how previous studies have dealt with the relationship between linguistic theory and the language processing system. This chapter argues that studies with explicit assumptions about the relationship between linguistic theory and the language processing system are necessary to understand the cognitive mechanisms underlying real-time sentence comprehension.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The aim and target of language processing studies
    • 2.1Marr (2010)’s three levels
    • 2.2Three levels of linguistics
  • 3.Chronicle of real-time sentence comprehension studies
    • 3.1The Derivational Theory of Complexity
    • 3.2Parsing strategy approaches
    • 3.3The transparency hypothesis between grammar and parser
    • 3.4Good enough processing
    • 3.5The cue-based retrieval model
    • 3.6The Shallow Structure Hypothesis in non-native
      language comprehension
    • 3.7Summary of the section
  • 4.Language processing research in L1 and L2
    • 4.1Mechanism underlying the processing of filler-gap dependencies
    • 4.2Grammatical knowledge related to the processing
      of filler-gap dependencies
    • 4.3Island constraints in L1 processing
    • 4.4Island constraints in L2 processing
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (69)
References
Berwick, R. C., & Weinberg, A. S. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006c). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 659–678. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2010). Constraints on L2 learners’ processing of wh-dependencies: Evidence from eye movements. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 87–110). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Embick, D., & Poeppel, D. (2015). Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language: Correlational, integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 357–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 540–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., & Garrett, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 2(7), 289–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.
(1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(4), 519–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2018). The neural basis for human syntax: Broca’s area and beyond. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 88–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Hierarchy processing in human neurobiology: How specific is it? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1789), 20180391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R. C., Moro, A., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(10), 713–722. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Futrell, R., Wilcox, E., Morita, T., Qian, P., Ballesteros, M., & Levy, R. (2019). Neural language models as psycholinguistic subjects: Representations of syntactic state. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), 32–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2019). The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing. Science, 366(6461), 55–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., & Beckmann, C. F. (2019). Key issues and future directions: The neural architecture for language. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brains to behavior (pp. 527–530). The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakes, D. T., Evans, J. S., & Brannon, L. L. (1976). Understanding sentences with relative clauses. Memory & Cognition, 4(3), 283–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies, 159–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, J., Dyer, C., Kuncoro, A., & Brennan, J. (2018). Finding syntax in human encephalography with beam search. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2727–2736. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, V. M. (1973). Order of main and subordinate clauses in sentence perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(3), 285–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2018). The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing. Second Language, 17, 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Second language sentence processing. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8(1), 235–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2(1), 15–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, E. F. (2018). Neural indices of structured sentence representation: State of the art. In K. D. Federmeier & D. G. Watson (Eds.), Current topics in language (pp. 117–142). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 429–445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marr, D. (2010). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matchin, W., & Hickok, G. (2020). The cortical organization of syntax. Cerebral Cortex, 30(3), 1481–1498. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 111–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. T. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, 2 (pp. 419–491). Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & McKean, K. O. (1964). A chronometric study of some relations between sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(4), 297–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Momma, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). The relationship between parsing and generation. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4(1), 233–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 563–588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oseki, Y., & Marantz, A. (2020). Modeling human morphological competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 513740. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 501–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
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 (pp. 147–180). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poeppel, D., Emmorey, K., Hickok, G., & Pylkkanen, L. (2012). Towards a new neurobiology of language. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(41), 14125–14131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Sprouse, J., & Lau, E. F. (2013). Syntax and the brain. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp. 971–1005). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 882–888. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 454–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Nicenboim, B., Engelmann, F., & Burchert, F. (2019). Computational models of retrieval processes in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(11), 968–982. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watt, W. C. (1970). On two hypotheses concerning psycholinguistics. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 137–220). Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, E., Levy, R., Morita, T., & Futrell, R. (2018). What do RNN language models learn about filler–gap dependencies? Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, 211–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue