Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.Google Scholar

Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arregui, A., Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 232–246.Google Scholar

Avrutin, S. & Wexler, K. (1992). Development of Principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition, 2, 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. C. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186.Google Scholar

Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar

Boster, C. (1991). Children’s failure to obey Principle B: Syntactic problem or lexical error? Unpublished MS, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, E282.Google Scholar

Brennan, J. (2016). Naturalistic sentence comprehension in the brain. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, J. R. & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe. Cognitive Science, 41, 1515–1531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brennan, J. R., Stabler, E. P., Van Wagenen, S. E., Luh, W., & Hale, J. (2016). Abstract linguistic structure correlates with temporal activity during naturalistic comprehension. Brain and Language, 157, 81–94.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I., & Wechsler, S. (2015). Lexical Functional Syntax, 2nd ed. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Burnsky, J. & Staub, A. (2019). Completion tasks reveal misinterpretations of noncanonical sentences. Talk at Psycholinguistics in Iceland – Parsing and Prediction. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar

Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google 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, 1, 225–295.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y., Kurenkov, I., Buffinton, J., Kraut, R., & Phillips, C. (2015). How predictions change over time: Evidence from an online cloze paradigm. Poster presented at the 28th annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 803–828.Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y., Momma, S., Smith, C., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2016). Prediction as memory retrieval: Timing and mechanisms. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 617–627.Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y. & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusion in the semantic P600 phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 577–596.Google Scholar

Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 446–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting interference profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.Google Scholar

Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 333–365.Google Scholar

Ettinger, A., Linzen, T., & Marantz, A. (2014). The role of morphology in phoneme prediction: Evidence from MEG. Brain and Language, 129, 14–23.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review, 22, 365–380.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 263–278.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gagnepain, P., Henson, R. N., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Temporal predictive codes for spoken words in auditory cortex. Current Biology, 22(7), 615–621.Google Scholar

Gaston, P., Huang, N., & Phillips, C. (2017). The logic of syntactic priming and acceptability judgments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e289.Google Scholar

Gaston, P., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2019). Syntactic category does not inhibit lexical competition. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon (Mental Lexicon 2018). Edmonton: University of Alberta. DOI: 10.7939/r3-1t0d-5833Google Scholar

Gaston, P. & Marantz, A. (2018). The time course of contextual cohort effects in auditory processing of category-ambiguous words: MEG evidence for a single “clash” as noun or verb. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 402–423.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 88–124.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Y. & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.Google Scholar

Grolla, E. (2005). Pronouns as elsewhere elements: Implications for language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Gwilliams, L. & Marantz, A. (2015). Non-linear processing of a linear speech stream: The influence of morphological structure on the recognition of spoken Arabic words. Brain and Language, 147, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hale, J., Dyer, C., Kuncoro, A., & Brennan, J. R. (2018). Finding syntax in human encephalography with beam search. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1806.04127Google Scholar

Hammerly, C., Staub, A., & Dillon, B. (2019). The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70–104.Google Scholar

Han, C., Elouazizi, N., Galeano, C., Görgülü, E., Hedberg, N., Hinnell, J., Jeffrey, M., Kim, K., & Kirby, S. (2012). Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. In Arnett, N. & Bennett, R., eds., Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 153–161.Google Scholar

Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 138–152.Google Scholar

Hestvik, A. & Philip, W. (1999/2000). Binding and coreference in Norwegian child language. Language Acquisition, 8, 171–235.Google Scholar

Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59–73.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 59, 193–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaufman, D. (1988). Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children’s knowledge of binding theory and reference relations. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar

Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.Google Scholar

Kim, C., Kobele, G. M., Runner, J. T., & Hale, J. T. (2011). The acceptability cline in VP-ellipsis. Syntax, 14, 318–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kimball, J. & Aissen, J. (1971). I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 241–246.Google Scholar

Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.Google Scholar

Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 489–530.Google Scholar

Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 217, 117–129.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470.Google Scholar

Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933.Google Scholar

Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax – Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.Google Scholar

Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 27–46.Google Scholar

Lombardi, L. & Sarma, J. (1989). Against the bound variable hypothesis of the acquisition of Condition B. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Lucas, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 385–398.Google Scholar

May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Immediate effects of form-class constraints on spoken word recognition. Cognition, 108(3), 866–873.Google Scholar

Mantegna, F., Hintz, F., Ostarek, M., Alday, P. M., & Huettig, F. (2019). Distinguishing integration and prediction accounts of ERP N400 modulation in language processing through experimental design. Neuropsychologia, 134: 107199. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107199Google Scholar

McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D., Cairns, H., & Hsu, J. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 121–139.Google Scholar

McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 155–200.Google Scholar

Momma, S., Kraut, R., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2017). Timing of syntactic and lexical priming reveals structure building mechanisms in production. Talk at the 30th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Momma, S., Luo, Y., Sakai, H., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). Lexical predictions and the structure of semantic memory: EEG evidence from case changes. Talk at the 29th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar

Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2018). Unaccusativity in sentence production. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 181–194.Google Scholar

Muller, H., de Dios Flores, I., & Phillips, C. (2019). Not (just) any licensors cause negative polarity illusions. Talk at Psycholinguistics in Iceland – Parsing and Prediction. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar

Nelson, M. J., El Karoui, I., Giber, K., Yang, X., Cohen, L., Koopman, H., Cash, S. S., Naccache, L., Hale, J. T., Pallier, C., & Dehaene, S. (2017). Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, E3669-E3678.Google Scholar

Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for the use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1402–1456.Google Scholar

Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.Google Scholar

Pearlmutter, N. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, J. K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar

Philip, W. & Coopmans, P. (1996). The double Dutch delay of Principle B effect. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E., & Zukowski, A., eds., Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 576–587.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795–803.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2010). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P., & Sohn, S.-O. (eds.), Japanese–Korean Linguistics 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 409–453.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. & Parker, D. (2014). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78–95.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar

Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. Experiments at the Interfaces, 37, 147–180.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steedman, M. (2000). The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Stowe, L. A. (1986). Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar

Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., Brown, H. E., & Berg, J. J. (2018). Keep listening: Grammatical context reduces but does not eliminate activation of unexpected words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 962–973.Google Scholar

Strauss, T. J., Harris, H. D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2007). jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 19–30.Google Scholar

Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Stroud, C. & Phillips, C. (2012). Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language, 120, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sturt, P. (2003). The time course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar

Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–440.Google Scholar

Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP Ellipsis, and Interpretation in Child Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Syntactic priming during sentence comprehension: Evidence for the lexical boost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 905–918.Google Scholar

Tyler, L. K. (1984). The structure of the initial cohort: Evidence from gating. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 417–427.Google Scholar

Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C., 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, 31, 443–467.Google Scholar

Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L, & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685–712.Google Scholar

Wagers, M., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar

Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35, 543–583.Google Scholar

Xiang, M., Dillon, B., Wagers, M., Liu, F., & Guo, T. (2014). Processing covert dependencies: An SAT study on Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23, 207–232.Google Scholar

Xiang, M., Wang, S., & Cui, Y. (2015). Constructing covert dependencies: The case of Mandarin wh-in-situ dependency. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 139–166.Google Scholar

Ye, Z. & Zhou, X. (2008). Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103–115.Google Scholar

Zukowski, A. & Larsen, J. (2004). The production of sentences that we fill their gaps. Poster presented at the 17th annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmann, G. T. M. (2011). The mediation of eye movements by spoken language. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 979−1004.Google Scholar

Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264.Google Scholar

Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., & Felser, C. (2015). Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1387. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387Google Scholar

Berwick, R. & Weinberg, A. (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Blackwell, A., Bates, E., & Fisher, D. (1996). The time course of grammaticality judgment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 337–406.Google Scholar

Bock, J. K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar

Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for immediate use of verb-based “control” information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.Google Scholar

Booth, J., MacWhinney, B., & Harasaki, Y. (2000). Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development, 71, 981–1003.Google Scholar

Bott, O. & Schlotterbeck, F. (2015). The processing domain of scope interaction. Journal of Semantics, 32, 39–92.Google Scholar

Boxell, O. (2014). Lexical fillers permit real-time gap-search in island domains. Journal of Cognitive Science, 15, 97–135.Google Scholar

Boxell, O. & Felser, C. (2017). Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 494–511.Google Scholar

Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25–45.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, A. & Dotlačil, J. (2015). Sentence-internal same and its quantificational licensors: A new window into the processing of inverse scope. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8, 1–52.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (1998). Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., & Pesetsky, D., eds., Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 59–92.Google Scholar

Chesi, C. (2007). Five reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue, 3(1), 71–105.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J., & Keyser., S. J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google 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, 65, 128–144.Google Scholar

Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. M. & Tanenhaus, M. K., eds., Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 273–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clifton, C. & Staub, A. (2011). Syntactic influences on eye movements in reading. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 895–909.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In van Gompel, R. P. G., Fischer, M. H., Murray, W. S., & Hill, R. L., eds., Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 341–372.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84−107.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2014). Variable binding and coreference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 71, 39–56.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2015). Structural constraints on pronoun binding and coreference: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 840. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00840Google Scholar

Czypionka, A., Dörre, L., & Bayer, J. (2018). Inverse Case attraction: Experimental evidence for a syntactically guided process. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 21(7), 135–188.Google Scholar

Demberg, V. & Sayeed, A. (2016). The frequency of rapid pupil dilations as a measure of linguistic processing difficulty. PLOS One, 11(1). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146194Google Scholar

Dickey, M. W., Choy, J. J., & Thompson, C. K. (2007). Real-time comprehension of wh-movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100, 1–22.Google Scholar

Dillon, B., Staub, A., Levy, J., & Clifton, C. (2017). Which noun phrases is this verb supposed to agree with? Object agreement in American English. Language, 93(1), 65–96.Google Scholar

Drummer, J.-D. & Felser, C. (2018). Cataphoric pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 97–113.Google Scholar

Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Gerfen, C. (2014). Using the visual world to study spoken language processing. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 93–126.Google Scholar

Dwivedi, V. D. (2013). Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: Evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing. PLOS One, 8(11), e81461. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081461Google Scholar

Enochson, K. & Culbertson, J. (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PLOS One, 10(3), 1–17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116946Google Scholar

Felser, C. (2015). Syntax and language processing. In Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A., eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1875–1911.Google Scholar

Felser, C. & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.Google Scholar

Felser, C. & Drummer, J.-D. (2017). Sensitivity to crossover constraints during native and non-native pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 771–789.Google Scholar

Felser, C. , Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11, 127–163.Google Scholar

Fox, D. (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 157–196.Google Scholar

Franck, J., Colonna, S., & Rizzi, L. (2015). Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 349. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00349Google Scholar

Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2002). Processing “d-linked” phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 633–660.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency-locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A. P., & O’Neill, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Jacobson, P., Graff, P., Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2015). A pragmatic account of complexity in definite Antecedent-Contained-Deletion relative clauses. Journal of Semantics, 32(4), 579–618Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Levy, R. (2017). Post-hoc analysis decisions drive the reported reading time effects in Hackl, Koster-Hale & Varvoutis (2012). Journal of Semantics, 34, 539–546.Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493Google Scholar

Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29(2), 145–206.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.Google Scholar

Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.Google Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.Google Scholar

Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 20–49.Google Scholar

Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 109–130.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 228–238.Google Scholar

Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Philips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar

Keating, G. (2014). Eye-tracking with text. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar

Keller, F., Gunasekharan, S., Mayo, N., & Corley, M. (2009). Timing accuracy of Web experiments: A case study using the WebExp software package. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1–12.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. (2004). Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Schmeiser, B., Chand, V., Kelleher, A., & Rodriguez, A., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 23). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101–125.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar

Koornneef, A. W. (2008). Eye-catching anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University (LOT Dissertation Series, 90). Utrecht, NL: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT).Google Scholar

Koornneef, A. W. (2010). Looking at anaphora: The psychological reality of the primitives of binding model. In Everaert, M. B. H., Lentz, T., De Mulder, H., Nilsen, Ø., & Zondervan, A., eds., The Linguistics Enterprise: From Knowledge of Language to Knowledge In Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 141–166.Google Scholar

Koornneef, A. W., Avrutin, S., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2011). Tracking the preference for bound-variable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. In Runner, J., ed., Experiments at the Interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, 37). Leiden: Brill, pp. 69–100.Google Scholar

Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 18–40.Google Scholar

Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2017). Looking forwards and backwards: the real-time processing of strong and weak crossover. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(70). DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.280Google Scholar

Lee, M.-W. (2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentence processing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 51–73.Google Scholar

Lee, S. & O’Grady, W. (2016). Psycholinguistic evidence for inverse scope in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 871–882.Google Scholar

Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.Google Scholar

Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 475–494.Google Scholar

Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 569–587.Google Scholar

Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–20.Google Scholar

Pablos Robles, L., Doetjes, J., & Cheng, L.-S. (2018). Backward dependencies and in-situ wh-questions as test cases on how to approach experimental linguistics research that pursues theoretical linguistics questions. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2237. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02237Google Scholar

Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.Google Scholar

Patterson, C. & Felser, C. (2019). Delayed application of binding condition C during cataphoric pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(2), 453–475.Google Scholar

Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795–823.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 11–47.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar

Phillips, C., Wagers, M., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In Runner, J., ed., Experiments at the Interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, 37). Leiden: Brill, pp. 147–180.Google Scholar

Pickering, M., Barton, S. B., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K., eds., Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 199–224.Google Scholar

Pittner, K. (1995). The case of German relatives. The Linguistic Review, 12, 197–231.Google Scholar

Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 261–303.Google Scholar

Postal, P. (1971). Crossover Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar

Omaki, A., Lau, E., White, I. D., Dakan, M., Apple, A., & Phillips, C. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 384. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492.Google Scholar

Reuland, E. (2011). Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Runner, J. T. & Head, K. D. L. (2014). What can visual world eye-tracking tell us about the binding theory? In Piñón, C., ed., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 10. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP), pp. 269–286.Google Scholar

Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 89, B1–B13.Google Scholar

Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Using eye movements as a source of linguistic evidence. In Kepser, S. & Reis, M., eds., Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 393–412.Google Scholar

Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193–241.Google Scholar

Sag, I. A. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Sekerina, I. A., Stromswold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns? Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 123–152.Google Scholar

Shan, C.-C. & Barker, C. (2006). Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 91–134.Google Scholar

Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar

Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar

Sturt, P. (2013). Syntactic constraints on referential processing. In van Gompel, R. P. G., ed., Sentence Processing. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 136–159.Google Scholar

Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215.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, 40, 542–562.Google Scholar

Tutunjian, D. & Boland, J. E. (2008). Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension. Language and Linguistic Compass, 2, 631–646.Google Scholar

Tutunjian, D., Heinat, F., Klingvall, E., & Wiklund, A.-L. (2017). Processing relative clause extractions in Swedish. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2118. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02118Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., von der Malsburg, T., & Engelmann, F. (2013). What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 125–134.Google Scholar

von der Malsburg, T. & Angele, B. (2016). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–133.Google Scholar

Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Attraction in comprehension: Representation and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar

Zwart, J.-W. (2009) Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 161–187.Google Scholar

Barkley, C. & Kluender, R. (2018). Processing anaphoric relations: An electrophysiological perspective. In Gundel, J. & Abbott, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 384–410.Google Scholar

Barkley, C., Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (2015). Referential processing in the human brain: An event-related potential (ERP) study. Brain Research, 1629, 143–159.Google Scholar

Besson, M. & Macar, F. (1987). An event-related potential analysis of incongruity in music and other non-linguistic contexts. Psychophysiology, 24(1), 14–25.Google Scholar

Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multidimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 495–522.Google Scholar

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55–73.Google Scholar

Brouwer, H. & Crocker, M. W. (2017). On the proper treatment of the N400 and P600 in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01327Google Scholar

Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143.Google Scholar

Caplan, D. (1987). Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavía, I., & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79–92.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993). Language and Thought. Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell.Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(7). DOI:10.1080/23273798.2018.1427878Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y. & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.Google Scholar

Chow, W.-Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2015). A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 577–596.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. M. (1984). Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1996). The unity of noun-modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, 3. Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya, pp. 1077–88.Google Scholar

Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21–58.Google Scholar

Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Galambos, R. (1975). Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 39(2), 131–143.Google Scholar

Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(6), 1117–1121.Google Scholar

Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2017). Is there a replication crisis? Perhaps. Is this an example? No: A commentary on Ito, Martin, and Nieuwland (2016). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 966–973.Google Scholar

Deutsch, A. & Bentin, S. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 200–224.Google Scholar

Dikker, S. & Pylkkänen, L. (2011). Before the N400: Effects of lexical–semantic violations in visual cortex. Brain and Language, 118(1–2), 23–28.Google Scholar

Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science, 21(5), 629–634.Google Scholar

Donchin, E. (1981). “Surprise! … Surprise?” Psychophysiology, 18(5), 493–513.Google Scholar

Featherston, S., Gross, M., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. (2000). Brain potentials in the processing of complex sentences: An ERP study of control and raising constructions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 141–154.Google Scholar

Federmeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123(12), 2552–2566.Google Scholar

Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler–gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87(3), 345–354.Google Scholar

Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler–gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 321–338.Google Scholar

Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic working memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 250–272.Google Scholar

Fiorentino, R., Covey, L., & Gabriele, A. (2018). Individual differences in the processing of referential dependencies: Evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 673, 79–84.Google Scholar

Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & PerryJr., N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20(4), 400–409.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1981). The mind–body problem. Scientific American, 244(1), 114–123.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 427–473.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. (1983). Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(2), 163–223.Google Scholar

Foley, S. & Wagers, M. (2017). The Subject Gap Preference in a split-ergative language: Reading time evidence from Georgian. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126.Google Scholar

Frenzel, S., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2011). Conflicts in language processing: A new perspective on the N400–P600 distinction. Neuropsychologia, 49(3), 574–579.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50(3), 259–281.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research 1(3), 183–192.Google Scholar

Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12(15), 3391–3394.Google Scholar

Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 484–498.Google Scholar

Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 51–60.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar

Grey, S., Tanner, D., & van Hell, J.G. (2017). How right is left? Handedness modulates neural responses during morphosyntactic processing. Brain Research, 1669, 27–43.Google Scholar

Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660–676.Google Scholar

Hagiwara, H., Soshi, T., Ishihara, M., & Imanaka, K. (2007). A topographical study on the event-related potential correlates of scrambled word order in Japanese complex sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 175–193.Google Scholar

Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439–483.Google Scholar

Hahne, A. & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194–205.Google Scholar

Haupt, F. S., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., Friedrici, A. D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension literature. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 54–96.Google Scholar

Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 59–73.Google Scholar

Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017a). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 954–965.Google Scholar

Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017b). Why the A/AN prediction effect may be hard to replicate: A rebuttal to Delong, Urbach, and Kutas (2017). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 974–983.Google Scholar

Janata, P. (1995). ERP measures assay the degree of expectancy violation of harmonic contexts in music. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7(2), 153–164.Google Scholar

Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.Google Scholar

Kanno, K. (2007). Factors affecting the processing of Japanese relative clauses by L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 197–218.Google Scholar

Karimi, H., Swaab, T. Y., & Ferreira, F. (2018). Electrophysiological evidence for an independent effect of memory retrieval on referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 68–82.Google Scholar

Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–222.Google Scholar

King, J. W. & 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

King, J. W. & Kutas, M. A. (1995). Who did what and when: Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 376–395.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. (1992). Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition, and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 223–258.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. W. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. (2003). In search of the golden slash: Prospecting for biological explanations of language. In Moore, J. & Polinsky, M., eds., The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993a). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196–214.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993b). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 573–633.Google Scholar

Kluender, R., Münte, T., Cowles, H. W., Szentkuti, A., Walenski, M., & Wieringa, B. (1998). Brain potentials to English and German questions. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society.Google Scholar

Kolk, H. & Chwilla, D. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language, 100, 257–261.Google Scholar

Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Kos, M., Vosse, T., van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00222Google Scholar

Kounios, J. & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 459–479.Google Scholar

Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.Google Scholar

Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(1), 117–129.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99–116.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11(5), 539–550.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163.Google Scholar

Kutas, M., Lindamood, T., & Hillyard, S. (1984). Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. In Kornblum, S. & Requin, J., eds., Preparatory States and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 217–237.Google Scholar

Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69(3), 218–233.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language, 8(3), 537–585.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P.C., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546–582.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., & Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Sturt, P., & Liu, P. (2017). Predicting semantic features in Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Cognition, 166, 433–446.Google Scholar

Lau, E., Clarke, N., Socolof, M., Asatiani, R., & Polinsky, M. (2019). A subject relative clause preference in a split-ergative language: ERP evidence from Georgian. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Lau, E. & Liao, C.-H. (2017). Linguistic structure across time: ERP responses to coordinated and uncoordinated noun phrases. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(5), pp. 633–647.Google Scholar

Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98(1), 74–88.Google Scholar

Luck, S. J. (2005). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011a). When persons disagree: An ERP study of Unagreement in Spanish. Psychophysiology, 48, 1361–1371.Google Scholar

Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011b). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1410, 64–76.Google Scholar

McKinnon, R. & Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(5), 495–524.Google Scholar

Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Moore, J. & Polinsky, M., eds.. (2003). The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Münte, T. F., Heinze, H.-J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36(3), 217–226.Google Scholar

Münte, T. F., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(3), 318–329.Google Scholar

Münte, T. F., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature, 395(6697), 71–73.Google Scholar

Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3(2), 151–165.Google Scholar

Nieuwland, M. S. & Kuperberg, G. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218.Google Scholar

Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 228–236.Google Scholar

Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., von Grebmer, zu Wolfsthurn, S., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D. J., Rousselet, G. A., Ferguson, H. J., Busch-Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Husband, E. M., Donaldson, D. I., Kohút, Z., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., & Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLIFE. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.33468.001Google Scholar

Nieuwland, M. S. & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution. Brain Research, 1118(1), 155–167.Google Scholar

Núñez-Peña, M.I. & Honrubia-Serrano, M.L. (2004). P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task. Cognitive Brain Research, 18(2), 130–141.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, 59(3), 494–522.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 507–526.Google Scholar

Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1402–1456.Google Scholar

Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 426–488.Google Scholar

Patel, A. D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 717–733.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82(4), 795–823.Google Scholar

Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407–428.Google Scholar

Roehm, D., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I., Frisch, S., & Haider, H. (2004). Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 15(3), 409–412.Google Scholar

Roll, M., Horne, M., & Lindgren, M. (2007). Object shift and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(6), 462–481.Google Scholar

Ruchkin, D. S., JohnsonJr., R., Grafman, J., Canoune, H., & Ritter, W. (1992). Distinctions and similarities among working memory processes: An event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(1), 53–66.Google Scholar

Sassenhagen, J. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2015). The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation. Cortex, 66, A3–A20.Google Scholar

Severens, E., Jansma, B. M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject–verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1228, 135–144.Google Scholar

Shao, J. & Neville, H. (1998). Analyzing semantic processing using event-related brain potentials. Newsletter of the Center for Research in Language, 11(5), 3–20.Google Scholar

Simson, R., Vaughan, H. G., & Ritter, W. (1977). The scalp topography of potentials in auditory and visual discrimination tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 42(4), 528–535.Google Scholar

Squires, N. K., Squires, K. C., & Hillyard, S. A. (1975). Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 38(4), 387–401.Google Scholar

Staab, J. (2007). Negation in context: Electrophysiological and behavioral investigations of negation effects in discourse processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Steinhauer, K. & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120(2), 135–162.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

Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1965). Evoked potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science, 150(3700), 1187–1188.Google Scholar

Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1967). Information delivery and the sensory evoked potential. Science, 155(3768), 1436–1439.Google Scholar

Szewczyk, J. M. & Schriefers, H. (2013). Prediction in language comprehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence comprehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 297–324.Google Scholar

Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 277–293.Google Scholar

Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 367–382.Google Scholar

Tanner, D. & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.Google Scholar

Toscano, J. C., McMurray, B., Dennhardt, J., & Luck, S. A. (2010). Continuous perception and graded categorization: Electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychological Science, 2(10), 1532–1540.Google Scholar

Ueno, M. & Garnsey, S. M. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 646–688.Google Scholar

Ueno, M. & Kluender, R. (2003). Event-related brain indices of scrambling in Japanese. Brain and Language, 86(2), 243–271.Google Scholar

Ueno, M. & Kluender, R. (2009). On the processing of Japanese wh-questions: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1290, 63–90.Google Scholar

Urbach, T. P., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more or less. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 79–96.Google Scholar

Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2002). The intractability of scaling scalp distributions to infer neuroelectric sources. Psychophysiology, 39(6), 791–808.Google 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, 63(2), 158–179.Google Scholar

van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(2), 147–182.Google Scholar

van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event‐related brain potentials reflect discourse‐referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40(2), 235–248.Google Scholar

van Berkum, J. J. A., 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, 31(3), 443–467.Google Scholar

van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M. & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171.Google Scholar

van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Bastiaansen, M. C., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2004). So who’s “he” anyway? Differential ERP and ERSP effects of referential success, ambiguity and failure during spoken language comprehension. Supplement to the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16.Google Scholar

van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181–1197.Google Scholar

van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. J., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 241–255.Google Scholar

Van Petten, C. & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19(1), 95–112.Google Scholar

Van Petten, C. & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190.Google Scholar

Verleger, R. (1990). P3-evoking wrong notes: Unexpected, awaiting, or arousing? International Journal of Neuroscience, 55(2–4), 171–179.Google Scholar

Vissers, C. Th. W. M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research, 1106(1), 150–163.Google Scholar

Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38(1), 41–63.Google Scholar

Wicha, N. Y. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346(3), 165–168.Google Scholar

Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39(3), 483–508.Google Scholar

Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272–1288.Google Scholar

Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language, 107(2), 133–157.Google Scholar

Zhang, Y.-X. & Zhang, J.-T. (2008). Brain responses to agreement violations of Chinese grammatical aspect. NeuroReport, 19(10), 1039–1043.Google Scholar

Aarts, J. (1991). Intuition-based and observation-based grammars. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B., eds., English Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 56–74.Google Scholar

Abercrombie, D. (1965). Pseudo-procedures in Linguistics. In Abercrombie, D., ed., Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–119.Google Scholar

Anderson, M. (1978). NP preposing in Noun Phrases. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 12–21.Google Scholar

Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.Google Scholar

Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27.Google Scholar

Atkins, S., Clear, J., & Ostler, N. (1992). Corpus design criteria. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.Google Scholar

Badiola, L., Delgado, R., Sande, A., & Stefanich, S. (2018). Code-switching attitudes and their effects on acceptability judgment tasks. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(1), 5–24.Google Scholar

Biber, D. (1993a). Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 219–241.Google Scholar

Biber, D. (1993b). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257.Google Scholar