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-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T20:00:58.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Syntax and Speaking

from Part IV - Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Shota Momma
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, I discuss the relationship between syntactic knowledge and sentence production, surveying previous studies on sentence production as they relate to syntactic theories. I examine representational assumptions that are widely held in prominent models of sentence production and empirical evidence for or against such assumptions, including evidence from speech errors, syntactic priming, and elicited production of complex sentences. I also discuss how syntactic theories and theories of speaking may (or may not) inform each other, focusing on studies that are relevant to the theories of argument structure, ellipsis, and long-distance dependencies. How production methods relate to acceptability judgment and theories of syntax more generally is also discussed.

Keywords

sentence productionsyntaxspeech errorsyntactic priminglong-distance dependency productionresumptive pronounargument structureellipsis
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 714 - 740
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 847–859.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2018). The autonomy of syntax. In Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H., Patel-Grosz, P., & Yang, C., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badecker, W. & Lewis, R. (2007). A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: Agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval. Presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. & Brame, M. K. (1972). Global rules: A rejoinder. Language, 48(1), 51–75.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Weinberg, A. S. (1986). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(1), 99–127.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Ferreira, V. (2013). Syntactically speaking. In Ferreira, V., Goldrick, M., & Miozzo, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language Production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Levelt, W. J. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A., ed., Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 945–984.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., Nicol, J., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 330–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bresnan, J. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structure. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures (no. 9). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S., Ladusaw, W. A., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3(3), 239–282.Google Scholar
Cleland, A. A. & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 214–230.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. S. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S., Oppenheim, G. M., & Kittredge, A. K. (2008). Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 583–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F. (1988). Planning and timing in sentence production: The syntax-to-phonology conversion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2000). Syntax in language production: An approach using tree-adjoining grammars. In Wheeldon, L., ed., Aspects of Language Production. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 291–330.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Engelhardt, P. E. (2006). Syntax and production. In M. Traxler & M. Gernsbacher, eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 61–91.CrossRefGoogle 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. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 263–278.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. & Slevc, L. R. (2007). Grammatical encoding. In Rueschemeyer, S.-A. & Gaskell, M. G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholiguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 453–470.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., Bock, K., Wilson, M. P., & Cohen, N. J. (2008). Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science, 19(9), 940–946.Google Scholar
Flett, S. (2006). A comparison of syntactic representation and processing in first and second language production. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., Bever, A., & Garrett, M. (1974). The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101(1), 173–216.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 371–404.Google Scholar
Frank, S. L., Bod, R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 279, 4522–4531.Google ScholarPubMed
Freidin, R. (1975). The analysis of passives. Language, 51, 384–405.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27–52.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2011). An Introduction to Language. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. H., ed., Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press, pp. 133–177.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1988). Processes in language production. In Newmeyer, F. J., ed., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 3: Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–96.Google Scholar
Gaston, P., Huang, N., & Phillips, C. (2017). The logic of syntactic priming and acceptability judgments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40,e282.Google Scholar
Gillespie, M. & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118(3), 377–397.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative Investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 544–569.Google Scholar
Gold, J. W., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., Becker, M., Čordalija, N., Kresić, M., et al. (2018). When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(3), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1977). Judgments of syntactic acceptability and frequency. Studia Linguistica, 31(2), 83–105.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1980). Syntactic frequency and acceptability. In T. A. Perry, ed., Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 301–314.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11(4), 274–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, Z. M. & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 537–555.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, M. L., Ferreira, V. S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2015). Syntactic priming in American Sign Language. PloS One, 10(3), e0119611.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Kolk, H. H. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(2), 143–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 138–152.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N. (2010). Incremental sentence production: Observations from elicited speech errors in Japanese. In Yamashita, H., Hirose, Y., & Packard, J. L., eds., Processing and Producing Head-Final Structures. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 131–151.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Bresnan, J., et al. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 47, 29–130.Google Scholar
Karins, A. K. & Nagy, N. (1993). Developing an experimental basis for determining grammaticality. Penn Review of Linguistics, 17, 93–100.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2), 201–258.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14(2), 185–209.Google Scholar
Kim, C. (2006). Structural and thematic information in sentence production. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1968). Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. Language, 44, 374–378.Google Scholar
Kweon, S.-O. & Bley-Vroman, R. (2011). Acquisition of the constraints on wanna contraction by advanced second language learners: Universal grammar and imperfect knowledge. Second Language Research, 27(2), 207–228.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Global rules. Language, 627–639.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 226.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2014). The CHILDES project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, vol. II: The Database. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188–230.Google Scholar
Melinger, A. & Dobel, C. (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98(1), B11–B20.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 477–496.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & McKean, K. O. (1964). A chronometric study of some relations between sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(4), 297–308.Google Scholar
Momma, S. & Ferreira, V. S. (2019). Beyond linear order: The role of argument structure in speaking. Cognitive Psychology, 114, 101228.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., Buffinton, J., & Phillips, C. (2020). Syntactic category constrains lexical competition in speaking. Cognition, 197, 104183.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2016). The timing of verb selection in Japanese sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(5), 813.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2018). Unaccusativity in sentence production. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(1), 181–194.Google Scholar
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. (1973). The tongue slips into patterns. In Fromkin, V., ed., Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 144–156.Google Scholar
Pearl, L. & Sprouse, J. (2013). Computational models of acquisition for islands. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1968). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013). On the nature of island constraints ii: Language learning and innateness. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–158.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 11–47.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and language, 39(4), 633–651.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2002). Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 586–605.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Ferreira, V. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L., Morgan, A., Xiang, M., & Heestand, D. (2013). Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–359.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 633.Google Scholar
Ritchart, A., Goodall, G., & Garellek, M. (2016). Prosody and the that-trace effect: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 320–328.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Teruel, E., & Meinshausen, R.-M. (1998). Producing simple sentences: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 609–632.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (2016). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, J., Tamaoka, K., & Sakai, H. (2007). Syntactic priming effects on the processing of Japanese sentences with canonical and scrambled word orders. Cognitive Studies, 14(2), 173–191.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J. & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G. & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68(1), B13–B29.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115(11), 1481–1496.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Merchant, J. (2014). Ellipsis sites induce structural priming effects. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J., Bencini, G., Goldberg, A., & Snedeker, J. (2019). How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 193, 104045.Google Scholar
Zukowski, A. & Larson, J. (2009). Elicited production of relative clauses in children with Williams syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(1), 1–43.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.

  • Syntax and Speaking
  • Edited by Grant Goodall, University of California, San Diego
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.027
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.

  • Syntax and Speaking
  • Edited by Grant Goodall, University of California, San Diego
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.027
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.

  • Syntax and Speaking
  • Edited by Grant Goodall, University of California, San Diego
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.027
Available formats
×