Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aligning Grammatical Theories and Language Processing Models

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We address two important questions about the relationship between theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics. First, do grammatical theories and language processing models describe separate cognitive systems, or are they accounts of different aspects of the same system? We argue that most evidence is consistent with the one-system view. Second, how should we relate grammatical theories and language processing models to each other?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some studies have challenged the generality of these conclusions about reflexives (Badecker and Straub 2002, experiment 3; King et al. 2012; Patil et al. 2011; Runner and Sussman 2006), but it is clear that the parser is able to ignore at least some grammatically irrelevant material in memory access.

  2. A couple of studies have reached more equivocal conclusions (Clifton and Frazier 1989; Pickering et al. 1994), but have stopped short of concluding that the parser is insensitive to island constraints. Some further studies have argued that the parser is able to construct island-violating filler-gap dependencies when other parses are not available (Freedman and Forster 1985; Hofmeister and Sag 2010), but these findings do not conflict with the findings about island effects in active dependency formation. We discuss these apparent misalignments between online and offline responses in the next section.

  3. For small-but-reliable illusions of ungrammaticality, see Lago and Phillips 2014 and Wagers 2008.

References

  • Aho, A. V., Lam, M. S., Sethi, R., & Ullman, J. D. (2006). Compilers: Principles, techniques, and tools (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.

  • Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax, 12, 93–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (2000). Case and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 37–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 89–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton, D. (2003). Symbol and structure: A comprehensive framework for language evolution. In M. H. Christiansen & S. Kirby (Eds.), Language evolution (pp. 77–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdages, J. S. (1992). Parsing complex NPs in French. In H. Goodluck & M. S. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing (pp. 61–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100, 434–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow, W. Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 630.

  • Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C, Jr., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In M. K. Tanenhaus & G. N. Carlson (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Clifton, C, Jr., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11, 11–39.

  • Clifton, C, Jr., Kennison, S., & Albrecht, J. (1997). Reading the words her, him, and his: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276–292.

  • Condry, K., & Spelke, E. (2008). The development of language and abstract concepts: The case of natural number. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowart, W., & Cairns, H. S. (1987). Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: Some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints. Memory and Cognition, 15, 318–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1987). Sentence matching and overgeneration. Cognition, 26, 123–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, J. G. (2007). The interface of language and theory of mind. Lingua, 117, 1858–1878.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2009). Complements enable representation of the contents of false beliefs: The evolution of a theory of theory of mind. In S. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Language Acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • de Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. E. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief understanding. Cognitive Development, 17, 1037–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, B. W. (2011). Structured access in sentence comprehension. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the back door. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 145–165). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Attraction in sentence production: The role of syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, S. L., Bod, R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 4522–4531.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, S. E., & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1660–1712). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., & Hickok, G. (1993). Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimenes, M., Rigalleau, F., & Gaonach, D. (2009). When a missing verb makes a French sentence more acceptable. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 440–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). “Some”, and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 42–55.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grune, D., & Jacobs, C. J. H. (2008). Parsing techniques: A practical guide. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29, 145–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermer, L., & Spelke, E. (1996). Modularity and development: The case of spatial reorientation. Cognition, 61, 195–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hermer-Vazquez, L., Moffet, A., & Munkholm, P. (2001). Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: The case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition, 79, 263–299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hermer-Vazquez, L., Spelke, E., & Katsnelson, A. S. (1999). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 3–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, E. K., & Novick, J. (2012). The benefits of executive control training and the implications for language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, D. C., Winkler-Rhoades, N., Lee, S. A., Izard, V., Shapiro, K. A., & Spelke, E. S. (2011). Spatial and numerical abilities without a complete natural language. Neuropsychologia, 49, 924–936.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and Tinkering. Science, 196, 1161-1166.

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 571–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2010). Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 371–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempen, G. (2014). Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics, 12, 111–142.

  • Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., & Sprenger, S. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 345–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennison, S. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J., Andrews, C., & Wagers, M. (2012). Do reflexives always find a good antecedent for themselves? In Poster at the 25th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York, NY.

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

  • Kush, D. (2013). Respecting relations: Memory access and antecedent retrieval in incremental sentence processing. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Ladusaw, W. (1996). Negation and polarity items. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 321–341). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lago, M. S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Agreement processes in Spanish comprehension. Ms. University of Maryland.

  • Ledoux, K., Gordon, P. C., Camblin, C. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Coreference and lexical repetition: Mechanisms of discourse integration. Memory and Cognition, 35, 801–815.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. (2013). Pragmatic enrichment in language processing and development. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.

  • McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 432–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identifying in ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, J., Hussey, E. K., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. (2014). Clearing the garden path: Improving sentence processing through executive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 186–217.

  • Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pablos, L., Ruijgrok, B., Doetjes, J., & Cheng, L. (2012). Processing cataphoric pronouns in Dutch: An ERP study. In Talk at the GLOW workshop on timing in grammar. Potsdam.

  • Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2011). Early retrieval interference in syntax-guided antecedent search. In Talk at the 24th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Stanford, CA.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 195–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C., & Parker, D. (2013). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.003.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (syntax and semantics, vol. 37) (pp. 153–186). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian Indigene group. Science, 306, 499–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M., Barton, J. S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints, and processing complexity. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 199–224). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I. A., & Fodor, J. D. (1994). Extraction without traces. In R. Aronovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss, & M. Senturia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 365–384). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Sloggett, S. (2013). Case licensing in processing: Evidence from German. In Poster at the 26th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Columbia, SC.

  • Spelke, E. S. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind (pp. 277–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprouse, J., & Lau, E. F. (2013). Syntax and the brain. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stabler, E. P. (2013). Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science,. doi:10.1111/tops.12031.

  • Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 308–327.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Staub, A. (2010). Reponse time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction. Cognition, 114, 447–454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturt, P. (2007). Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition, 105, 477–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swaab, T. Y., Camblin, C. C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 715–726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A. (2013). Quantification and ACD: What is the evidence from real-time processing evidence for? A response to Hackl et al. (2012). Journal of Semantics. doi:10.1093/jos/ffs025.

  • Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trotzke, A., Bader, M., & Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics, 7, 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagers, M. W. (2008). The structure of memory meets memory for structure in linguistic cognition. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2014). Going the distance: Memory and decision making in active dependency construction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1274–1304.

  • Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Information structure influences depth of syntactic processing: Event-related potential evidence for the Chomsky Illusion. PLOS One, 7, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2014). Deconstructing acomparative illusion. Ms. Northwestern University, University of Southern California, and University of Maryland.

  • Whitney, C. S. (2004). Investigations into the neural basis of structured representations. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language, 108, 40–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida, M., Aoshima, S., & Phillips, C. (2004). Relative clause prediction in Japanese. In Talk at the 17th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. College Park, MD.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported in part by NSF #BCS-0848554 to CP, by NSF IGERT #DGE-0801465 to the University of Maryland, and by a University of Maryland Flagship Fellowship to SL. For useful discussion we are indebted to Brian Dillon, Janet Fodor, Norbert Hornstein, Dave Kush, Bradley Larson, Jeff Lidz, and Amy Weinberg.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Krieger Hall 237, 3400 N Charles St, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

    Shevaun Lewis

  2. Department of Linguistics, Maryland Language Science Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Colin Phillips

Authors
  1. Shevaun Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shevaun Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, S., Phillips, C. Aligning Grammatical Theories and Language Processing Models. J Psycholinguist Res 44, 27–46 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation