The role of the language production system in shaping grammars

McDaniel, Dana; McKee, Cecile; Cowart, Wayne; Garrett, Merrill F.

doi:10.1353/lan.2015.0021

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Haspelmath, 2006Haspelmath, , 2009Hawkins, 1994Hawkins, , 2004Hawkins, , 2007Hawkins, , 2014Sinnemäki, 2014, as well, more recently, from psycholinguistics and the cognitive sciences, e.g. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Choudhary, Witzlack-Makarevich, & Bickel, 2008;Christiansen & Chater, 2008;Jaeger & Tily, 2011;MacDonald, 2013;McDaniel, McKee, Cowart, & Garrett, 2015; see also Bever, 1970). Typology-processing links are often based on an implicit assumption that processing mechanisms are the same universally, though this of course remains to be empirically demonstrated (for encouraging progress, see, e.g.…”

Section: Conclusion and Looking Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances

Norcliffe

Harris

Jaeger

2015

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a small but growing body of psycholinguistic research focused on typologically diverse languages. This represents an important development for the field, where theorising is still largely guided by the often implicit assumption of universality. This paper introduces a special issue of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience devoted to the topic of cross-linguistic and field-based approaches to the study of psycholinguistics. The papers in this issue draw on data from a variety of genetically and areally divergent languages, to address questions in the production and comprehension of phonology, morphology, words, and sentences. To contextualise these studies, we provide an overview of the field of cross-linguistic psycholinguistics, from its early beginnings to the present day, highlighting instances where cross-linguistic data have significantly contributed to psycholinguistic theorising

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Looking Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances

Norcliffe

Harris

Jaeger

2015

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is not directly clear how this explanation would carry over to German, since German differs in many relevant respects: it has a different word order (SOV instead of SVO), complementizer deletion results in verb fronting (to C), and it has overt case marking. McDaniel et al (2015), conversely, propose that the COMP-trace effect is not so much parsingrelated, but motivated by production considerations. According to them, starting an embedded clause with a gap is problematic from a sentence-planning perspective.…”

Section: Comp-trace Effect and Accessibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

COMP-trace effects in German: the role of processing

Schippers¹,

Vogelzang²,

Öwerdieck³

2020

NLY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on the processing and comprehension of COMP-trace violations in German. The status of the COMP-trace effect in German is a controversial issue. It has been argued that judgments on long-distance (LD) subject questions are distorted because of parsing problems in the main clause, the embedded clause, or both, and that LD subject questions are sometimes misinterpreted as object questions. Our self-paced reading data shows that processing difficulties with LD subject questions occur in the embedded clause, not the main clause, particularly at the point at which an embedded subject gap is postulated. Our study furthermore shows that readers are garden-pathed towards object readings of subject long-distance questions, but only when the embedded clause contains a case-ambiguous DP. A case-ambiguous DP thus functions as a superficial work-around for a COMP-trace violation. As we argue, our data support the view that German has a genuine COMP-trace effect and that potential parsing problems only occur in the context of local ambiguities. We propose that differences in the magnitude and fatality of COMP-trace violations between languages can be explained by formulating the COMP-trace effect in terms of accessibility, rather than a categorical syntactic constraint.

show abstract

“…These and related findings led us to conclude that the sentence planning system is architecturally similar for children and adults, but that children are not as capable of advance planning. (For further discussion, see McDaniel et al, 2010;McDaniel, McKee, & Garrett, 2011;McDaniel, McKee, Cowart, & Garrett, 2012. ) Our study for this report compared utterances with relative clause structures to utterances with conjoined clause structures.…”

Section: Structural Effects: Relative Clauses and Conjoined Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%