References

Masatoshi Koizumi

doi:10.1017/9781108915571.018

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 January 2023

Masatoshi Koizumi

Show author details

Masatoshi Koizumi: Affiliation:
Tohoku University, Japan

Book contents

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108915571.018 [Opens in a new window]

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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.2007.02.003 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.2006.11.045 Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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.CrossRef Google 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.20441 Google 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.2009.017 Google 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.2007.05.006 Google 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

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive