1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 4, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 4, 2018

The Relationship Between Parsing and Generation

Abstract

Humans use their linguistic knowledge in at least two ways: on the one hand, to convey what they mean to others or to themselves, and on the other hand, to understand what others say or what they themselves say. In either case, they must assemble the syntactic structures of sentences in a systematic fashion, in accordance with the grammar of their language. In this article, we advance the view that a single mechanism for building sentence structure may be sufficient for structure building in comprehension and production. We argue that differing behaviors reduce to differences in the available information in either task. This view has broad implications for the architecture of the human language system and provides a useful framework for integrating largely independent research programs on comprehension and production by both constraining the models and uncovering new questions that can drive further research.

Keyword(s): generation, parsing, sentence processing, syntax
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045719
2018-01-14
2024-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/4/1/annurev-linguistics-011817-045719.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045719&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abney SP, Johnson M. 1991. Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 20:233–50 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allum PH, Wheeldon LR. 2007. Planning scope in spoken sentence production: the role of grammatical units. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33:791–810 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allum PH, Wheeldon LR. 2009. Scope of lexical access in spoken sentence production: implications for the conceptual–syntactic interface. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35:1240–55 [Google Scholar]
  4. Altmann GTM, Kamide Y. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73:247–64 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aoshima S, Yoshida M, Phillips C. 2009. Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax 12:93–134 [Google Scholar]
  6. Appelt DE. 1987. Bidirectional grammars and the design of natural language generation systems. Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing206–12 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  7. Badecker W, Lewis RL. 2007. Agreement and sentence formulation: the role of working memory (retrievals) in language production Unpubl. ms. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ben Shalom D, Poeppel D. 2008. Functional anatomic models of language: assembling the pieces. Neuroscientist 14:119–27 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bever TG, McElree B. 1988. Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguist. Inq. 19:35–43 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bever TG, Sanz M. 1997. Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension: unaccusatives in Spanish. Linguist. Inq. 28:69–91 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bianchi V, Chesi C. 2014. Subject islands, reconstruction, and the flow of the computation. Linguist. Inq. 45:525–69 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bloom P, Barss A, Nicol J, Conway L. 1994. Children's knowledge of binding and coreference: evidence from spontaneous speech. Language 70:53–71 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bock JK. 1986. Meaning, sound, and syntax: lexical priming in sentence production. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 12:575–86 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bock JK. 1987. An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. J. Mem. Lang. 26:119–37 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bock JK, Cutting JC. 1992. Regulating mental energy: performance units in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 31:99–127 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bock JK, Eberhard KM, Cutting JC. 2004. Producing number agreement: how pronouns equal verbs. J. Mem. Lang. 51:251–78 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bock JK, Ferreira VS. 2014. Syntactically speaking. The Oxford Handbook of Language Production M Goldrick, VS Ferreira, M Miozzo 21–46 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Bock JK, Levelt WJM. 1994. Language production: grammatical encoding. Handbook of Psycholinguistics MA Gernsbacher 945–84 San Diego: Academic [Google Scholar]
  19. Bock JK, Miller CA. 1991. Broken agreement. Cogn. Psychol. 23:45–93 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bock JK, Nicol J, Cutting JC. 1999. The ties that bind: creating number agreement in speech. J. Mem. Lang. 40:330–46 [Google Scholar]
  21. Boomer DS. 1965. Hesitation and grammatical encoding. Lang. Speech 8:148–58 [Google Scholar]
  22. Caramazza A, Zurif EB. 1976. Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: evidence from aphasia. Brain Lang 3:572–82 [Google Scholar]
  23. Chien Y-C, Wexler K. 1990. Children's knowledge of locality conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Lang. Acquis. 1:225–95 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chow WY, Momma S, Smith C, Lau E, Phillips C. 2016. Prediction as memory retrieval: timing and mechanisms. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31:617–27 [Google Scholar]
  25. Clifton C, Staub A. 2008. Parallelism and competition in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2:234–50 [Google Scholar]
  26. Conroy A, Takahashi E, Lidz J, Phillips C. 2009. Equal treatment for all antecedents: how children succeed with Principle B. Linguist. Inq. 40:446–86 [Google Scholar]
  27. Crain S, Fodor JD. 1985. How can grammars help parsers. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives DR Dowty, L Karttunen, AM Zwicky 94–128 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  28. Crocker M. 1996. Computational Psycholinguistics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Language Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
  29. De Smedt K. 1996. Computational models of incremental grammatical encoding. Computational Psycholinguistics: AI and Connectionist Models of Human Language Processing A Dijkstra, K De Smedt 279–307 London: Taylor & Francis [Google Scholar]
  30. Dell GS, Chang F. 2014. The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 369:20120394 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dell GS, Oppenheim GM, Kittredge AK. 2008. Saying the right word at the right time: syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production. Lang. Cogn. Process. 23:583–608 [Google Scholar]
  32. Dell GS, O'Seaghdha PG. 1992. Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 42:287–314 [Google Scholar]
  33. DeLong KA, Urbach TP, Kutas M. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nat. Neurosci. 8:1117–21 [Google Scholar]
  34. Dillon B, Mishler A, Sloggett S, Phillips C. 2013. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: experimental and modeling evidence. J. Mem. Lang. 69:85–103 [Google Scholar]
  35. Eberhard KM, Cutting JC, Bock JK. 2005. Making syntax of sense: number agreement in sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 112:531–59 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ellis AW, Miller D, Sin G. 1983. Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: a case study in cognitive neuropsychology. Cognition 15:111–44 [Google Scholar]
  37. Federmeier KD. 2007. Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 44:491–505 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ferreira F. 2000. Syntax in language production: an approach using tree-adjoining grammars. Aspects of Language Production L Wheeldon 291–330 Philadelphia: Psychology [Google Scholar]
  39. Ferreira F, Swets B. 2002. How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. J. Mem. Lang. 46:57–84 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ferreira F, Swets B. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones A Cutler 263–78 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  41. Ferreira VS. 1996. Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 35:724–55 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ferreira VS, Humphreys KR. 2001. Syntactic influences on lexical and morphological processing in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 44:52–80 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fodor JA, Bever TG, Garrett MF. 1974. The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar New York: McGraw-Hill
  44. Fodor JD. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguist. Inq. 9:427–73 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ford M, Holmes VM. 1978. Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition 6:35–53 [Google Scholar]
  46. Foulke E, Sticht TG. 1969. Review of research on the intelligibility and comprehension of accelerated speech. Psychol. Bull. 72:50–62 [Google Scholar]
  47. Forster K. 1992. Memory-addressing mechanisms and lexical access. Adv. Psychol. 94:413–34 [Google Scholar]
  48. Garrett MF. 1980. Levels of processing in sentence production. Language Production I Speech and Talk BL Butterworth 177–220 London: Academic [Google Scholar]
  49. Garrett MF. 1988. Processes in language production. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey III Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects FJ Newmeyer 69–96 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Garrett MF. 2000. Remarks on the architecture of language processing systems. Language and the Brain Y Grodzinsky, L Shapiro, D Swinney 31–69 San Diego: Academic [Google Scholar]
  51. Gennari SP, MacDonald MC. 2009. Linking production and comprehension processes: the case of relative clauses. Cognition 111:1–23 [Google Scholar]
  52. Geschwind N. 1967. The varieties of naming errors. Cortex 3:97–112 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gleitman LR, January D, Nappa R, Trueswell JC. 2007. On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. J. Mem. Lang. 57:544–69 [Google Scholar]
  54. Green G. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
  55. Griffin ZM. 2001. Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition 82:B1–4 [Google Scholar]
  56. Griffin ZM, Weinstein-Tull J. 2003. Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. J. Mem. Lang. 49:537–55 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hartsuiker RJ, Kolk HH. 2001. Error monitoring in speech production: a computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cogn. Psychol. 42:113–57 [Google Scholar]
  58. Huettig F, Hartsuiker RJ. 2010. Listening to yourself is like listening to others: External, but not internal, verbal self-monitoring is based on speech perception. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25:347–74 [Google Scholar]
  59. Iwasaki N. 2010. Processing and Producing Head-Final Structures Berlin: Springer
  60. Johnson-Laird PN. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  61. Joshi AK, Schabes Y. 1997. Tree-adjoining grammars. Handbook of Formal Languages G Rozenber, A Saloma 69–123 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  62. Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E, Holcomb P. 2000. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Lang. Cogn. Proc. 15:159–201 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kamide Y, Altmann GT, Haywood SL. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. J. Mem. Lang. 49:133–56 [Google Scholar]
  64. Keenan JM, MacWhinney B. 1987. Understanding the relationship between comprehension and production. Psycholinguistic Models of Language Production HW Dechert, M Raupach 149–55 Norwood, NJ: Ablex [Google Scholar]
  65. Kempen G. 2000. Could grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding be subserved by the same processing module. ? Behav. Brain Sci. 23:38–39 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kempen G. 2014. Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics 12:111–42 [Google Scholar]
  67. Kempen G, Hoenkamp E. 1987. An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cogn. Sci. 11:201–58 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kempen G, Olsthoorn N, Sprenger S. 2012. Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: evidence from grammatical multitasking. Lang. Cogn. Process. 27:345–80 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kempson R, Meyer-Viol W, Gabbay DM. 2001. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
  70. Kim AE, Oines LD, Sikos L. 2016. Prediction during sentence comprehension is more than a sum of lexical associations: the role of event knowledge. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31:597–601 [Google Scholar]
  71. Kim CS, Carbary KM, Tanenhaus MK. 2014. Syntactic priming without lexical overlap in reading comprehension. Lang. Speech 57:181–95 [Google Scholar]
  72. Konopka AE. 2012. Planning ahead: how recent experience with structures and words changes the scope of linguistic planning. J. Mem. Lang. 66:143–62 [Google Scholar]
  73. Kutas M, Hillyard SA. 1980. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207:203–5 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lau E, Stroud C, Plesch S, Phillips C. 2006. The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain Lang 98:74–88 [Google Scholar]
  75. Levelt WJ. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14:41–104 [Google Scholar]
  76. Levelt WJ. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  77. Lewis RL. 2000. Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 29:241–48 [Google Scholar]
  78. Lewis RL, Vasishth S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn. Sci. 29:375–419 [Google Scholar]
  79. Lewis S, Phillips C. 2015. Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 44:27–46 [Google Scholar]
  80. Lombardo V, Sturt P. 2002. Incrementality and lexicalism: a treebank study. The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, Computational and Experimental Issues S Stevenson, P Merlo 137–55 Philadelphia: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  81. Lupker SJ. 1979. The semantic nature of response competition in the picture–word interference task. Mem. Cogn. 7:485–95 [Google Scholar]
  82. MacDonald MC. 1989. Priming effects from gaps to antecedents. Lang. Cogn. Process. 4:35–56 [Google Scholar]
  83. MacDonald MC. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Front. Psychol. 4:226 [Google Scholar]
  84. MacDonald MC, Pearlmutter NJ, Seidenberg MS. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychol. Rev. 101:676–703 [Google Scholar]
  85. MacKay DG. 1987. Asymmetries in the relationship between speech perception and production. Perspectives on Perception and Action H Heuer, A Sanders 301–33 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  86. Marcus MP. 1980. Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Languages Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  87. Marr D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information San Francisco: Freeman
  88. Marslen-Wilson W. 1973. Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244:522–23 [Google Scholar]
  89. McClelland JL, Elman JL. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cogn. Psychol. 18:1–86 [Google Scholar]
  90. McDaniel D, Cowart W. 1999. Experimental evidence for a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition 70:B15–24 [Google Scholar]
  91. McElree B, Bever TG. 1989. The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 18:21–35 [Google Scholar]
  92. Melinger A, Dobel C. 2005. Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition 98:B11–20 [Google Scholar]
  93. Menenti L, Gierhan SM, Segaert K, Hagoort P. 2011. Shared language overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychol. Sci. 22:1173–82 [Google Scholar]
  94. Meyer AS. 1996. Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: results from picture–word interference experiments. J. Mem. Lang. 35:477–96 [Google Scholar]
  95. Miller G, Chomsky N. 1963. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology RD Luce, RR Bush, E Galanter 2419–91 New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  96. Momma S, Kraut R, Slevc LR, Phillips C. 2017. Timing of syntactic and lexical priming reveals structure-building mechanisms in production Presented at Annu. CUNY Conf. Hum. Sentence Process., 30th Cambridge, MA: March 30–April 1
  97. Momma S, Muller H, Phillips C. Long-distance dependency in sentence production Forthcoming
  98. Momma S, Slevc LR, Buffinton J, Phillips C. 2016. Similar words compete, but only when they're from the same category Presented at Annu. CUNY Conf. Hum. Sentence Process., 29th Gainesville, FL: March 3–5
  99. Neely JH. 1977. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. J. Exp. Psychol. 106:226–54 [Google Scholar]
  100. Nicol J, Swinney D. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. J. Psychol. Res. 18:5–19 [Google Scholar]
  101. Nooteboom SG. 1969. The tongue slips into patterns. Leyden Studies in Linguistics and Phonetics G Sciarone, A van Essen, A Van Raad 114–32 The Hague: Mouton [Google Scholar]
  102. Norcliffe E, Konopka AE, Brown P, Levinson SC. 2015. Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30:1187–208 [Google Scholar]
  103. Omaki A, Lau EF, Davidson White I, Dakan ML, Apple A, Phillips C. 2015. Hyper-active gap filling. Front. Psychol. 6:384 [Google Scholar]
  104. Parker D, Phillips C. 2017. Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. J. Mem. Lang. 94:272–90 [Google Scholar]
  105. Phillips C. 1996. Order and structure PhD thesis MIT Cambridge, MA:
  106. Phillips C. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguist. Inq. 34:37–90 [Google Scholar]
  107. Phillips C, Kazanina N, Abada S. 2005. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cogn. Brain Res. 22:407–28 [Google Scholar]
  108. Phillips C, Lewis S. 2013. Derivational order in syntax: evidence and architectural consequences. Stud. Linguist. 6:11–47 [Google Scholar]
  109. Phillips C, Wagers MW, Lau EF. 2011. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. Exp. Interfaces 37:147–80 [Google Scholar]
  110. Pickering MJ, Branigan HP. 1998. The representation of verbs: evidence from syntactic priming in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 39:633–51 [Google Scholar]
  111. Pickering MJ, Ferreira VS. 2008. Structural priming: a critical review. Psychol. Bull. 134:427–59 [Google Scholar]
  112. Pickering MJ, Garrod S. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11:105–10 [Google Scholar]
  113. Pickering MJ, Garrod S. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behav. Brain Sci. 36:329–47 [Google Scholar]
  114. Postma A. 2000. Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition 77:97–132 [Google Scholar]
  115. Resnik P. 1992. Left-corner parsing and psychological plausibility. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Linguistics 1191–97 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  116. Roelofs A. 1992. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition 42:107–42 [Google Scholar]
  117. Schneider DA. 1999. Parsing and incrementality PhD thesis Univ. Delaware Newark:
  118. Schriefers H, Meyer AS, Levelt WJ. 1990. Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: picture–word interference studies. J. Mem. Lang. 29:86–102 [Google Scholar]
  119. Segaert K, Menenti L, Weber K, Petersson KM, Hagoort P. 2011. Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension—an fMRI study. Cereb. Cortex 22:1662–70 [Google Scholar]
  120. Segaert K, Wheeldon L, Hagoort P. 2016. Unifying structural priming effects on syntactic choices and timing of sentence generation. J. Mem. Lang. 91:59–80 [Google Scholar]
  121. Shan CC, Barker C. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguist. Philos. 29:91–134 [Google Scholar]
  122. Shieber SM. 1988. A uniform architecture for parsing and generation. Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computational Linguistics 2614–19 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  123. Smith M, Wheeldon L. 1999. High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition 73:205–46 [Google Scholar]
  124. Snedeker J, Trueswell J. 2003. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: effects of speaker awareness and referential context. J. Mem. Lang. 48:103–30 [Google Scholar]
  125. St. John MF, McClelland JL. 1990. Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension. Artif. Intell. 46:217–57 [Google Scholar]
  126. Staub A, Clifton C Jr.. 2006. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either…or.. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32:425–36 [Google Scholar]
  127. Steedman M. 2000. The Syntactic Process 24 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  128. Stowe LA. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Lang. Cogn. Process. 1:227–45 [Google Scholar]
  129. Sturt P, Lombardo V. 2005. Processing coordinated structures: incrementality and connectedness. Cogn. Sci. 29:291–305 [Google Scholar]
  130. Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Eberhard KM, Sedivy JC. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268:1632–34 [Google Scholar]
  131. Traxler MJ, Pickering MJ, Clifton C Jr.. 1998. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. J. Mem. Lang. 39:558–92 [Google Scholar]
  132. Trueswell JC, Kim AE. 1998. How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: fast priming of verb argument structure. J. Mem. Lang. 39:102–23 [Google Scholar]
  133. van Berkum JJ, Brown CM, Zwitserlood P, Kooijman V, Hagoort P. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31:443–67 [Google Scholar]
  134. Vosse T, Kempen G. 2000. Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition 75:105–43 [Google Scholar]
  135. Wagers MW, Lau EF, Phillips C. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. J. Mem. Lang. 61:206–37 [Google Scholar]
  136. Wagers MW, Phillips C. 2014. Going the distance: memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 67:1274–304 [Google Scholar]
  137. Wagner V, Jescheniak JD, Schriefers H. 2010. On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36:423–40 [Google Scholar]
  138. Wheeldon L, Ohlson N, Ashby A, Gator S. 2013. Lexical availability and grammatical encoding scope during spoken sentence production. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 66:1653–73 [Google Scholar]
  139. Wheeldon L, Smith M. 2003. Phrase structure priming: a short-lived effect. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18:431–42 [Google Scholar]
  140. Wright B, Garrett M. 1984. Lexical decision in sentences: effects of syntactic structure. Mem. Cogn. 12:31–45 [Google Scholar]
  141. Zukowski A, Larsen J. 2004. The production of sentences that we fill their gaps Presented at Annu. CUNY Conf. Hum. Sentence Process., 17th, College Park, MD: March 25–27
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045719
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error