Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:52:56.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2023

Masatoshi Koizumi
Masatoshi Koizumi
Affiliation:
Tohoku University, Japan
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Constituent Order in Language and Thought
A Case Study in Field-Based Psycholinguistics
 , pp. 204 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aissen, J. L. (1992). Topic and focus in Mayan. Language, 68, 43–80. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. L. (1996). Pied-piping, abstract agreement, and functional projections in Tzotzil. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 447–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133596.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. L. (2017). Information structure in Mayan. In Aissen, J. L., England, N. C., and Maldonado, R. Z. (Eds.). The Mayan languages, 293–324. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Aissen, J., England, N. C., and Maldonado, R. Z. (Eds.). (2017). The Mayan languages. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Ajsivinac Sian, J. E., García Mátzar, L. P. O., Cutzal, M. C., et al. (2004). Gramática descriptiva del idioma maya Kaqchikel: Rutzijoxik rucholik ri Kaqchikel ch’ab’äl. Antigua. Guatemala: Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala, Comunidad Lingüística Kaqchikel.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. (2004). Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T., and Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 7(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1.Google Scholar
Anand, P., Chung, S., and Wagers, M. (2011). Widening the net: Challenges for gathering linguistic data in the digital age. In NSF SBE 2020: Rebuilding the mosaic: Future research in the social, behavioral and economic sciences at the National Science Foundation in the next decade. Alexandria, Virginia: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., and Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 23–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., and Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005.Google Scholar
Baayen, H., Davidson, D. J., and Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.Google Scholar
Bader, M., and Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023206208142.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1985). The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373–416.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, , R., Scheepers, C., et al. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., et al. (2015a). Parsimonious mixed models. Available online at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., et al. (2015b). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R. (2016). Mayan phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(10), 469–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12148.Google Scholar
Bennett, R., Coon, J., and Henderson, R. (2016). Introduction to Mayan linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(10), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12159.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Boatman, D., Gordon, B., Hart, J., et al. (2000). Transcortical sensory aphasia: Revisited and revised. Brain, 123(8), 1634–1642. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.8.1634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.1.Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., and Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., and Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., and Weenink, , D. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.1.31. Available online at: www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Donelson, K. T., Tucker, R. E., et al. (2014). The cultural transmission of spatial cognition: Evidence from a large-scale study. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36, 213–217.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., and Friederici, A. D. (2002). Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from online processing of flexible word order. Cognition, 85, B21–B30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010–0277(02)00076–8 .Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., and Friederici, A. D. (2003). Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960244000018.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M. (2009a). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M. (2009b). Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., and von Cramon, D. Y. (2009). Word order and Broca’s region: Evidence for a supra-syntactic perspective. Brain and Language, 111(3), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.09.004.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., and Feleki, E. (1999). Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek language production. In Hahn, M., and Stones, S. C. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 96–101. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., and Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118, 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003Google Scholar
Brennan, J., Nir, Y., Hasson, U., et al. (2012). Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during natural story listening. Brain and Language, 120(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.04.002.Google Scholar
Brennan, J., and Pylkkänen, L. (2012). The time-course and spatial distribution of brain activity associated with sentence processing. NeuroImage, 60(2), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.030.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. R., and Pylkkänen, L. (2017). MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe. Cognitive Science, 41(Suppl. 6), 1515–1531. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12445.Google Scholar
Brennan, J., Stabler, E., Wagenen, S. V., et al. (2016). Abstract linguistic structure correlates with temporal activity during naturalistic comprehension. Brain and Language, 157–158, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.008.Google Scholar
Brody, J. (1984). Some problems with the concept of basic word order. Linguistics, 22, 711–736. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1984.22.5.711.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H. (1983). Where do cardinal direction terms come from? Anthropological Linguistics, 25(2), 121–161.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1992). ‘Left’ and ‘right’ in Tenejapa: Investigating a linguistic and conceptual gap. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 45(6), 590–611.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1993a). “Uphill” and “downhill” in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 3(1), 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1993.3.1.46.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1993b). Linguistic and nonlinguistic coding of spatial arrays: Explorations in Mayan cognition (Working Paper 24). Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Brown, R. M., Maxwell, J. M., and Little, W. E. (2006). ¿La ütz awäch?: Introduction to Kaqchikel Maya language. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, L., and Kaufman, T. (1985). Mayan linguistics: Where are we now? Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 187–198.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., Waters, G., et al. (2000). Activation of Broca’s area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping, 9(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(200002)9:2%3C65::aid-hbm1%3E3.0.CO;2-4.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Chen, E., and Waters, G. (2008). Task-dependent and task-independent neurovascular responses to syntactic processing. Cortex, 44(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2006.06.005.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Stanczak, L., and Waters, G. (2008). Syntactic and thematic constraint effects on blood oxygenation level dependent signal correlates of comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20044.Google Scholar
Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (Eds.) (2000). The syntax of verb initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The Framework. In Martin, R., et al. (Eds.). Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., and Ferreira, F. (2005). Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98(2), 105–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006.Google Scholar
Chujo, K. (1983). Nihongo tanbun-no rikai katei – Bunrikai sutoratejii no sougo kankei [The interrelationships among strategies for sentence comprehension]. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 54, 250–256.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (2017). VOS languages: Some of their properties. In Everaert, M., and Van Riemsdijk, H. C. (Eds.). The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, Second Edition, 4787–4832. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clemens, L. E. (2013). Kaqchikel SVO: V2 in a V1 language. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.). Studies in Kaqchikel grammar, 1–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL).Google Scholar
Clemens, L., and Coon, J. (2018). Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan. Language, 94(2), 237–280. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0017.Google Scholar
Clemens, L. E., Coon, J., Pedro, P. M., et al. (2015). Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(2), 417–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9260-x.Google Scholar
Cohn, N., and Paczynski, M. (2013). Prediction, events, and the advantage of agents: The processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cognitive Psychology, 67(3), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.07.002.Google Scholar
Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., and Kutas, M. (2017). Not so secret agents: Event-related potentials to semantic roles in visual event comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 119, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.09.001.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(1), 45–61.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coon, J. (2010). VOS as predicate fronting in Chol Mayan. Lingua, 120, 345–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.006.Google Scholar
Coon, J. (2013). Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, J. (2016). Mayan morphosyntax. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(10), 515–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12149.Google Scholar
Coppola, M., and Newport, E. L. (2005). Grammatical subjects in home sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(52), 19249–19253. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509306102.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, M., and Geuder, W. (Eds.). The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 21–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dayley, J. (1981). Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Linguistics, 2, 3–82.Google Scholar
De Smedt, K. (1990). IPF: An incremental parallel formulator. In Dale, R., Mellish, C., and Zock, M. (Eds.). Current research in natural language generation, 167–192. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2002). Case distinctions, rich verb agreement, and word order type (comments on Hawkins’ paper). Theoretical Linguistics, 28(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2002.28.2.151.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer, M. S., and Haspelmath, M. (Eds.). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at: http://wals.info/chapter/81 [last accessed August 24, 2022].Google Scholar
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2019). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (22nd ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version available at: www.ethnologue.com [last accessed August 24, 2022].Google Scholar
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2020). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (23rd ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version at: www.ethnologue.com [last accessed August 24, 2022].Google Scholar
England, N. C. (1991). Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 57(4), 446–486. https://doi.org/10.1086/ijal.57.4.3519735.Google Scholar
England, N. C. (2003). Mayan language revival and revitalization politics: Linguists and linguistic ideologies. American Anthropologist, 105(4), 733–743. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2003.105.4.733.Google Scholar
Erdocia, K., Laka, I., Mestres-Missé, A., et al. (2009). Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque. Brain and Language, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.12.003.Google Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. (2016). Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 429–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Henderson, J. M., Anes, M. D., et al. (1996). Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving-window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.324.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., and Friederici, A.D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 250–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02) 00004–9.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. A. (1975). Influences on word-order change in American Sign Language. In Li, C. N. (Ed.). Word order and word order change, 1–25. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. (2008). The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In Austin, P. K., and Musgrave, S. (Eds.). Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, 22–44. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Guerrera, C., and Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.163.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In Garfield, J. (Ed.). Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing, 291–307. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., and Clifton, C Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406359.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., and d’Arcais, G. B. F. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R. C., et al. (2017). Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4.Google Scholar
Futrell, R., Hickey, T., Lee, A., et al. (2015). Cross-linguistic gestures reflect typological universals: A subject-initial, verb-final bias in speakers of diverse languages. Cognition, 136, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022.Google Scholar
García Matzar, L. P. O., and Rodríguez Guaján, P. B’.J. O. (1997). Rukemik ri Kaqchikel chi’: Gramática Kaqchikel. Guatemala City: Cholsamaj and OKMA.Google Scholar
García Matzar, P. O., Cotzajay, V. T., and Tuiz, D. C. (1999). Gramática del idioma Kaqchikel. Antigua, Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüstico Francisco Marroquín.Google Scholar
Garzon, S., Brown, M. R., Richards, J. B., et al. (1998). The life of our language: Kaqchikel Maya maintenance. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, M., and Ruhlen, M. (2011). The origin and evolution of word order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(42), 17290–17295. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., and MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.006.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Mirković, J., and MacDonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). Dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, , A., Miyashita, , Y., and O’ Neil, W. (Eds.). Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., Brink, K., et al. (2013). A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1079–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463705.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In Givon, T. (Ed.). Discourse and syntax, 81–112. New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_005.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., et al. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 544–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.007.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., and Feldman, H. (1977). The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science, 197(4301), 401–403. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.877567.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., and Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391(6664), 279–281. https://doi.org/10.1038/34646.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., So, W. C., Özyürek, A., et al. (2008). The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9163–9168. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710060105.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J.H. (Ed.). Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Grewe,Google Scholar
Grewe, T., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Zysset, S., et al. (2007). The role of the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the processing of unmarked transitivity. NeuroImage, 35(1), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.045Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., and Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11(4), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00255.Google Scholar
Grodner, D., and Gibson, E. (2005). Some consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Y., Pieperhoff, P., and Thompson, C. (2021). Stable brain loci for the processing of complex syntax: A review of the current neuroimaging evidence. Cortex, 142, 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.06.003.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y., and Santi, A. (2008). The battle for Broca’s region. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(12), 474–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.001.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, H. (1993). The breakdown of Japanese passives and theta-role assignment principle by Broca’s aphasics. Brain and Language, 45(3), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1993.1049.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, H., and Caplan, D. (1990). Syntactic comprehension in Japanese aphasics: Effects of category and thematic role order. Brain and Language, 38(1), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(90)90107-R.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, H., Soshi, T., Ishihara, M., et al. (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. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.175.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2019). The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing. Science, 366(6461), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0289.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., and Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1531–1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00053-1.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., and Karlsson, F. (1980). Finnish syntax in text: Methodology and some results of a quantitative study. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 93–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500000536.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In the Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073336.1073357.Google Scholar
Hall, M. L., Mayberry, R. I., and Ferreira, V. S. (2013). Cognitive constraints on constituent order: Evidence from elicited pantomime. Cognition, 129(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.004.Google Scholar
Hall, M. L., Ahn, Y. D., Mayberry, R. I., et al. (2015). Production and comprehension show divergent constituent order preferences: Evidence from elicited pantomime. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.12.003.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2013). External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua, 125, 34–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (2011). Nouns, verbs, and constituents in an emerging ‘Tzotzil’ sign language. In Gutiérrez-Bravo, , R., Mikkelsen, , L., and Potsdam, E. (Eds.). Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, 157–171. Santa Cruz, VS: UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1989). Do second language learners acquire restrictive relative clauses on the basis of relational or configurational information? The acquisition of French subject, direct object, and genitive restrictive clauses by second language learners. Second Language Research, 5(2), 156–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765838900500204.Google Scholar
Heaton, R., Deen, K., & O’Grady, W. (2016). The status of syntactic ergativity in Kaqchikel. Lingua, 170, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032606.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
Henderson, R. (2016). Mayan semantics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(10), 551–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12187.Google Scholar
Henderson, R., and Coon, J. (2018). Adverbs and variability in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9370-3.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2012). Information structure as a consequence of word order type. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 16, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v16i1.3363.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Golinkoff, R. M. (1996). The origins of grammar: Evidence from early language comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holmer, A. (2005). Seediq: Antisymmetry and final particles in a Formosan VOS language. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley, S. A. (Eds.). Verb first: On the syntax of verb initial languages, 175–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hwang, H. (2017). The role of thematic role accessibility in production: Evidence from Korean. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016. 1237668.Google Scholar
Hyönä, H., and Hujanen, H. (1997). Effects of case marking and word order on sentence parsing in Finnish: An eye fixation analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50(4), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755738.Google Scholar
Imamura, S., and Koizumi, M. (2008). Bunrikai-ni okeru joho kozo-to togo kozo-no kogosayo-ga syojiru taimingu-ni tuite [On the time course of the interaction between information structure and syntactic structure in sentence comprehension]. Proceedings of the 137th Conference of the Linguistics Society of Japan, 92–97. Kyoto: Linguistics Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Imamura, S., and Koizumi, M. (2011). A centering analysis of word order in Japanese. Tohoku Studies in Linguistics, 20, 59–74.Google Scholar
Imamura, S., Sato, Y., and Koizumi, M. (2016). The processing cost of scrambling and topicalization in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00531.Google Scholar
Imanishi, Y. (2014). Default ergative. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Imanishi, Y. (2020). Parameterizing split ergativity in Mayan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 38(1), 151–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-09440-9.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. (1998). Moshi migi ya hidari ga nakattara – Gengo jinruigaku heno shotai [A world without right or left – An introduction to linguistic anthropology]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. (2002). Zettai to sotai no hazama de – Kukanshiziwaku ni yoru kominyukeshon [Between absolute and relative: Communication through spatial frame of reference]. In Ohori, T. (Ed.). Ninchigengogaku II: Kategorika [Cognitive linguistics II: Categorization], 11–35. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. (2005). Kukan ninchi to komyunikeshon [Spatial cognition and communication]. In Ide, S., and Hiraga, M. (Eds.). Ibunka to komyunikeshon [Intercultural communication], 118–129. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Jaeger, F. T. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.Google Scholar
Jaeger, F. T., and Norcliffe, E. (2009). The cross-linguistic study of sentence production: State of the art and a call for action. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(4), 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00147.x.Google Scholar
Jarvis, E. D. (2019). Evolution of vocal learning and spoken language. Science, 366(6461), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0287.Google Scholar
Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371–375.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., et al. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386084.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., and Swaab, T. Y. (2003a). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00175-7.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., and Swaab, T. Y. (2003b). Repair, revision and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321107855.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E. 2013. Experimental paradigms in psycholinguistics. In Podesva, R. J., and Sharma, D. (Eds.). Research Methods in Linguistics, 135–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E., and Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002.Google Scholar
Kanduboda, A. B. P., and Tamaoka, K. (2012). Priority information determining the canonical word order of written Sinhalese sentences. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2(1), 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2012.21004.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1991). On the first ground of the distinction of regions in space. In Van Cleve, J., and Frederick, R. E. (Eds.). The philosophy of right and left, 27–33. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kay, P., and Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2012). The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca’s area. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.322.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., and Harbusch, K. (2005). The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In Kepser, S., and Reis, M. (Eds.). Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, 329–349. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., and Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2), 201–258. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., and Sprenger, S. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(3), 345–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.544583.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (2012). Kankokugo kakimazegojyunbun-no puraimingu kooka [Priming effects in scrambled sentences in Korean]. Culture, 75, 228–213.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Koizumi, M., Ikuta, N., et al. (2009). Scrambling effects on the processing of Japanese sentences: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.07.005.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. (2012). Word order in Russian sign language: An extended report. Linguistics in Amsterdam, 5(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
King, J., and Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H.Google Scholar
King, J. W., and Kutas, M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376.Google Scholar
Kinno, R., Kawamura, M., Shioda, S., et al. (2008). Neural correlates of non-canonical syntactic processing revealed by a picture-sentence matching task. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20441Google Scholar
Kinno, R., Muragaki, Y., Hori, T., et al. (2009). Agrammatic comprehension caused by a glioma in the left frontal cortex. Brain and Language, 110(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.05.001.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. (2009). Topic prominency in Japanese. The Linguistic Review, 26(4), 465–513. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.017.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, C. (1982). Topic constructions in Japanese. Lingua, 57(2–4), 175–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90004-3.Google Scholar
Kiyama, S., Tamaoka, K., Kim, J., et al. (2013). Effect of animacy on word order processing in Kaqchikel Maya. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.017Google Scholar
Kiyama, S., Sun, M., Kim, J., et al. (2017). Interference of context and bilinguality with the word order preference in Kaqchikel reversible sentences. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 75, 22–34.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M., and Imamura, S. (2016). Interaction between syntactic structure and information structure in the processing of a head-final language, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9433-3.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M., and Kim, J. (2016). Greater left inferior frontal activation for SVO than VOS during sentence comprehension in Kaqchikel. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1541. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01541.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M., and Saito, T. (2021). Kakuchikerugo washa no kuukan sanshowaku: nihongo washa to no hikaku [Spatial frames of reference of Kaqchikel speakers: A comparative study with Japanese speakers]. Tohoku Studies in Linguistics, 29, 1–24.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M., Takeshima, Y., Tachibana, R., et al. (2019). Cognitive loads and time courses related to word order preference in Kaqchikel sentence production: An NIRS and eye-tracking study. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1650945.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M., Yasugi, Y., Tamaoka, K., et al. (2014). On the (non)universality of the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension: A sentence-processing study in Kaqchikel Maya. Language, 90(3), 722–736. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0068.Google Scholar
Kronmüller, E., and Barr, D. J. (2015). Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008.Google Scholar
Kubo, T., Ono, H., Tanaka, M., et al. (2015). Kakuchikerugo VOS-gojyun no sanshutsu mekanizumu: yuu-seisei ga gojyun no sentaku ni ataeru kooka o tooshite [Mechanisms for VOS sentence production in Kaqchikel: Evidence from animacy effects on choice of word order]. Cognitive Studies, 22 (4), 591–603. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.22.591.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1978). Danwa-no bumpo [Grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Kuno, S., and Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–672.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., et al. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00086-7.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S. Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 12(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.12.1.02kur.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., and Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.Google Scholar
Laka, I., and Erdocia, K. (2012). Linearization preferences given “free word order”; Subject preferences given ergativity: A look at Basque. In Torrego, E. (Ed.). Festschrift for Professor Carlos Piera, 115–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford California, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langus, A., and Nespor, M. (2010). Cognitive systems struggling for word order. Cognitive Psychology, 60(4), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.01.004.Google Scholar
Larsen, T. W. (1988). Manifestations of ergativity in Quiché grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Larsen, T. W., and Norman, W. M. (1979). Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. In Plank, F. (Ed.). Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 347–370. London/New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lascaratou, C. (1989). A functional approach to constituent order with particular reference to Modern Greek. Implications for language learning and language teaching. Athens: Parousia Monograph Series, 5.Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., and Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De) constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532.Google Scholar
Law, D. (2014). Language contact, inherited similarity and social difference: The story of linguistic interaction in the Maya lowlands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lee, E. K., Brown-Schmidt, S., and Watson, D. G. (2013). Ways of looking ahead: Hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition, 129(3), 544–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.007.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1996a). Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25(1), 353–382. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1996b). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., et al. (Eds.). Language and space, 109–170. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., Haun, D. B., et al. (2002). Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition, 84(2), 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00045-8.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006Google Scholar
Li, P., and Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83(3), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00009-4.Google Scholar
Li, P., Abarbanell, L., Gleitman, L., et al. (2011). Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition, 120(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.012.Google Scholar
Lindsley, J. R. (1975). Producing simple utterances: How far ahead do we plan? Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90002-X.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., and Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language, 53(1), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/413059.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A., and Moravcsik, E. (Eds.). (2014). Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., et al. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), 9, 234–253.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2000). Case and licensing. In Reuland, E. (Ed.). Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 11–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.429.Google Scholar
Marian, V., and Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 97–115.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, M. E. (2016). WI as a marker of pragmatic salience in the language of the kaqchikel chronicles. Transactions of the Philological Society, 114(1), 51–74.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Hara, S., and Natsuike, D. (2010). Chiritekikankyo to kukansanshowaku no shiyo: Kobe ni okeru chosa kara [Geographic environment and the use of spatial reference frames: A study in Kobe]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Kansai Linguistic Society, 30, 13–24.Google Scholar
Matzke, M., Mai, H., Nager, W., et al. (2002). The cost of freedom: An ERP-study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(6), 844–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00059-7.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. M., and Little, W. E. (2006). Tijonïk Kaqchikel oxlajuj aj – Curso de idioma y cultura maya Kaqchikel. Guatemala: Editorial Junajpu.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., and Kondo, T. (2002). Costs of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing. In Nakayama, M. (Ed.). Sentence processing in East Asian languages, 131–166. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., and Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25(2), 188–230. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1005.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Lifshitz, A., Ilkbasaran, D., et al. (2010). The interaction of animacy and word order in human languages: A study of strategies in a novel communication task. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on the Evolution of Language, Utrecht, Germany.Google Scholar
Meyer, M., Obleser, J., Anwander, A., et al. (2012). Linking ordering in Broca’s area to storage in left temporo-parietal regions: The case of sentence processing. NeuroImage, 62(3), 1987–1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.052.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A., and Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. C., Dasen, P. R., and Niraula, S. (2003). Ecology, language, and performance on spatial cognitive tasks. International Journal of Psychology, 38(6), 366–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000187.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2005). EPP and semantically vacuous scrambling. In Sabel, J., and Saito, M. (Eds.). The free word order phenomenon, 181–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Momma, S. M. (2016). Parsing, generation, and grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Momma, S., and Phillips, C. (2018). The relationship between parsing and generation. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045719.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. (Ed.). (2010). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger, 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., and Tomlin, R. S. (2008). Perceptual priming and structural choice in Russian sentence production. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.1.31.Google Scholar
Nakano, Y., Felser, C. and Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace position in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 531–571. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021260920232.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J., and Sutton-Spence, R. (2014). Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2000). Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62(1), 56–119. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1986.0014.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, E., Harris, A. C., and Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: Early beginnings and recent advances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1009–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, E., Konopka, A. E., Brown, P., et al. (2015). Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1187–1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1006238.Google Scholar
Nuger, J. (2010). Architecture of the Palauan verb complex. Doctoral dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., and Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000172.Google Scholar
Ohta, S., Koizumi, M., and Sakai, K. L. (2017). Dissociating effects of scrambling and topicalization within the left frontal and temporal language areas: An fMRI study in Kaqchikel Maya. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00748.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.Google Scholar
Ono, H., Kim, J., Sato, M., et al. (2020). Syntax and processing in Seediq: A behavioral study. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 29(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-020-09207-7.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., and Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., and Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and language, 34(6), 739–773. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1033.Google Scholar
Otaki, K., Sugisaki, K., Yusa, N., et al. (2019). Two routes to the Mayan VOS: From the view of Kaqchikel. Gengo Kenkyu, 156, 25–45. https://doi.org/10.11435/gengo.156.0_25.Google Scholar
Otsuka, Y. (2005a). Syntax and/or pragmatics: PP-scrambling in Tongan and the thematic hierarchy. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Conference, 343–357.Google Scholar
Otsuka, Y. (2005b). Two derivations of VSO: A comparative study of Niuean and Tongan. In Carnie, A., Dooley, S. A., and Harley, H. (Eds.). Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, 65–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Otsuka, Y. (2005c). Scrambling and information focus: VSO-VOS alternation in Tongan. In Sabel, J., and Saito, M. (Eds.). The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity, 243–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Palmer, B., Lum, J., Schlossberg, J., et al. (2017). How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for sociotopography. Linguistic Typology, 21(3), 457–491.Google Scholar
Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., et al. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74(3), 557–589. https://doi.org/10.2307/417793.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. M. (1982). Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N. and Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.012.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., and Wagers, M. W. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G. (Ed.). Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, 739–756. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2016). Deconstructing ergativity: Two types of ergative languages and their features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Gallo, C. G., Graff, P., et al. (2012). Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua, 122(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.004.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York, NY: Halt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. (2011). Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B., and Whitman, J. (1995). Syntactic representation and interpretive preference. In Mazuka, R., and Nagai, N. (Eds.). Japanese sentence processing, 65–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1977). Word order universals and grammatical relations. Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical relations, 249–277. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pye, C. (1992). The acquisition of K’iche’ (Maya). In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 3, 221–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2019). The neural basis of combinatory syntax and semantics. Science, 366(6461), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0050.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., and Marantz, A. (2003). Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 187–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00092-5.Google Scholar
Core Team, R. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: www.R-project.org [last accessed August 24, 2022].Google Scholar
Reali, F., and Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2003). Atlas lingüístico de Guatemala. Guatemala: Instituto de Lingüística y Educación de la Universidad Rafael Landívar.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2010). Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2016). Contiguity theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Riesberg, S. (2014). Symmetrical voice and linking in western Austronesian languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518716.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (Ed.). Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Robinson, S. (2002). Constituent order in Tenejapan Tzeltal. International Journal of American Linguistics, 68(1), 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/466479.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Guaján, J. O. (1989). Orden basico del Kaqchikel del siglo XVI. Paper presented at the XI Taller Maya, Quetzaltenango, Guatemala.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Guaján, J. O. (1994). Rutz’ib’axik ri Kaqchikel: Manual de redacción Kaqchikel. Guatemala: Editorial Cholsamaj.Google Scholar
Rogalsky, C., Matchin, W., and Hickok, G. (2008). Broca’s area, sentence comprehension, and working memory: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.014.2008.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F., and Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 348–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002.Google Scholar
Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., et al. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 150–176. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2551.Google Scholar
Saito, M. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Saito, M. (1989). Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Baltin, M., and Kroch, A. (Eds.). Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 182–200. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Saito, M., and Fukui, N. (1998). Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(3), 439–474. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553815.Google Scholar
Sakai, K. L. (2005). Language acquisition and brain development. Science, 310(5749), 815–819.Google Scholar
Sakai, H., Kubo, T., Ono, H., et al. (2012). Does word order influence non-verbal event description by speakers of OS language? The 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Sapporo, August 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C., et al. (2005). The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(7), 2661–2665. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.040544810.Google Scholar
Santi, A., and Grodzinsky, Y. (2010). fMRI adaptation dissociates syntactic complexity dimensions. NeuroImage, 51(4), 1285–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.034.Google Scholar
Sauppe, S. (2016). Verbal semantics drives early anticipatory eye movements during the comprehension of verb-initial sentences. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 95. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00095.Google Scholar
Sauppe, S., Norchiffe, E., Konopka, A., et al. (2013). Dependencies first: Eye tracking evidence from sentence production in Tagalog. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1265–1270. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., et al. (2000). The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In Hemforth, B., and Konieczny, L. (Eds.). German sentence processing, 65–93. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Scott, S. K. (2019). From speech and talkers to the social world: The neural processing of human spoken language. Science, 366(6461), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0288.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. (1997). The syntax and processing of Russian scrambled constructions in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. (2003). Scrambling processing: Dependencies, complexity, and constraints. In Karimi, S. (Ed.). Word order and scrambling, 301–324. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Senghas, A., Coppola, M., Newport, E. L., et al. (1997). Argument structure in Nicaraguan sign language: The emergence of grammatical devices. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, 21(2), 550–561.Google Scholar
Shain, C., Blank, I. A., van Schijndel, M., et al. (2020). fMRI reveals language-specific predictive coding during naturalistic sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 138, 107307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107307.Google Scholar
Shibata, H., Sugiyama, T., Suzuki, M., et al. (2006). Nihongo-setsunai-kakimazebun-no konsekiitishuuhen-ni okeru shorikatei-no kentou [An investigation of processing processes around a trace position in sentences with clause-internal scrambling]. Cognitive Studies, 13, 301–315. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.13.301.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (1993). Syntactic weight vs information structure and word order variation in Polish. Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000323.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. (Ed.). Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (2017). Ethnologue global dataset. Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.1.1.01slo.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J., and Levinson, S. (Eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D., and Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Hickmann, M., and Robert, S. (Eds.). Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 59–81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., and Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12(3), 229–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90033-6.Google Scholar
Smith, M., and Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73(3), 205–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00053-0.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 425–449. https://doi.org/10.2307/25164903.Google Scholar
Sugisaki, K., Otaki, K., Yusa, N., et al. (2012). The acquisition of word order and its constraints in Kaqchikel: A preliminary study. In Chu, C.-Y., et al. (Ed.). Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012), 72–78. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Symeonidou, I., Dumontheil, C. W., and Breheny, R. (2016). Development of online use of theory of mind during adolescence: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 149, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.11.007.Google Scholar
Tada, H. (1993). A/A-bar partition in derivation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Takeshima, Y., Tachibana, R., Asaoka, R., et al. (2014). Processing loads related to word order preference during sentence production in Japanese: An NIRS and eye tracking study. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 73, 36–45.Google Scholar
Tamaoka, K., Asano, M., Miyaoka, Y., et al. (2014). Pre- and post-head processing for single- and double-scrambled sentences of a head-final language as measured by the eye tracking method. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43, 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-013-9244-8.Google Scholar
Tamaoka, K., Kanduboda, P. B. A., and Sakai, H. (2011). Effects of word order alternation on the sentence processing of Sinhalese written and spoken forms. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2011.12004.Google Scholar
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., et al. (2003). The effects of phrase-length order and scrambling in the processing of visually presented Japanese sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 431–454. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024851729985.Google Scholar
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., et al. (2005). Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 281–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-3641-6.Google Scholar
Tamaoka, K., Zhang, J., Otsuka, Y., et al. (2021). Derivation of VOS in Tongan: An experimental investigation. Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP 2021). September 2, 2021, Université de Paris, France.Google Scholar
Tanaka, M. N., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., et al. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.009.Google Scholar
Tarallo, F., and Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00986.x.Google Scholar
Tateishi, K. (1990). The S-structure syntax of the subject and ‘S-adjunctions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Tay Coyoy, A. (1996). Análisis de situación de la educación maya en Guatemala. Guatemala: Cholsamaj.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. K., Bonakdarpour, B., and Fix, S. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms of verb argument structure processing in agrammatic aphasic and healthy age-matched listeners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(9), 1993–2011. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21334.Google Scholar
Tichoc Cumes, R., Ajsivinac Sian, J. E., Oscar García, L. P., et al. (2000). Runuk’ul pa rub’eyal rutz’ib’axik ri Kaqchikel ch’ab’ äl: Gramática normativa del idioma Maya Kaqchikel. Chimaltenango: Comunidad Lingüística Kaqchikel de la Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., and Rhodes, R. (1992). Information distribution in Ojibwa. In Payne, D. L. (Ed.). Pragmatics of word order flexibility, 117–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., and Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2836.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 566–585. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0030.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., and Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., and Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.528.Google Scholar
Tsukida, N. (2009). Sedekku-go (Taiwan)-no bunpoo [Grammar of Seediq (Taiwan)]. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Ueno, M., and Kluender, R. (2003). Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling. Brain and Language, 86(2), 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00543-6.Google Scholar
Vissers, C. T. W., Kolk, H. H., Van de Meerendonk, N., et al. (2008). Monitoring in language perception: Evidence from ERPs in a picture-sentence matching task. Neuropsychologia, 46(4), 967–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.11.027.Google Scholar
Walenski, M., Europa, E., Caplan, D., et al. (2019). Neural networks for sentence comprehension and production: An ALE‐based meta‐analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 40, 2275–2304. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24523.Google Scholar
Wanner, E., and Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J., and Miller, G. A. (Eds.). Linguistic theory and psychological reality, 119–161. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wassmann, J., and Dasen, P. R. (1998). Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence of moderate linguistic relativity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 4(4), 689–711. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034828.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. (2017). The division of labor between syntax and morphology in the Kichean agent-focus construction. Morphology, 27, 685–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9312-0.Google Scholar
Waters, G., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., et al. (2003). Individual differences in rCBF correlates of syntatic processing in sentence comprehension: Effects of working memory and speed of processing. NeuroImage, 19(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00007-7.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (Edited by: J. B. Carroll). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. L., Charles, A. P., and Liu, Y. (2010). Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language, 112(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.10.005.Google Scholar
Yano, M., and Koizumi, M. (2018). Processing of non-canonical word orders in (in) felicitous contexts: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(10), 1340–1354. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1489066.Google Scholar
Yano, M., and Koizumi, M. (2021). The role of discourse in long-distance dependency formation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2021, 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1883694.Google Scholar
Yano, M., Niikuni, K., Ono, H., et al. (2019). Syntax and processing in Seediq: An event-related potential study. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 28(4), 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-019-09200-9.Google Scholar
Yano, M., Tateyama, Y., and Sakamoto, T. (2014). Processing of Japanese cleft constructions in context: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9294-6.Google Scholar
Yano, M., Yasunaga, D., and Koizumi, M. (2017). Event-related brain indices of gap-filling processing in Kaqchikel. In Harris, S. R. (Ed.). Event-related potential (ERP): Methods, outcomes, research insights, 89–122. Waltham, MA: NOVA Biomedical.Google Scholar
Yasugi, Y. (1996). Kaqchikel. In Kamei, T., Kono, R., and Chino, E. (Eds.). Gengogaku daijiten dai 1 kan [A dictionary of linguistics, vol. 1], 1140–1142. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Yasugi, Y. (2005). Fronting of nondirect arguments and adverbial focus marking on the verb in Classical Yucatec. International Journal of American Linguistics, 71(1), 56–86.Google Scholar
Yasunaga, D., Yano, M., Yasugi, Y., et al. (2015). Is the subject-before-object preference universal? An event-related potential study in the Kaqchikel Mayan language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1209–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1080372.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Masatoshi Koizumi, Tohoku University, Japan
  • Book: Constituent Order in Language and Thought
  • Online publication: 19 January 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108915571.018
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Masatoshi Koizumi, Tohoku University, Japan
  • Book: Constituent Order in Language and Thought
  • Online publication: 19 January 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108915571.018
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Masatoshi Koizumi, Tohoku University, Japan
  • Book: Constituent Order in Language and Thought
  • Online publication: 19 January 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108915571.018
Available formats
×