Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- 22 Theories All the Way Down
- 23 Eye-Tracking and Self-Paced Reading
- 24 Nothing Entirely New under the Sun: ERP Responses to Manipulations of Syntax
- 25 Corpus Studies of Syntax
- 26 Syntax and Speaking
- 27 Neuroimaging
- Index
- References
22 - Theories All the Way Down
Remarks on “Theoretical” and “Experimental” Linguistics
from Part IV - Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- 22 Theories All the Way Down
- 23 Eye-Tracking and Self-Paced Reading
- 24 Nothing Entirely New under the Sun: ERP Responses to Manipulations of Syntax
- 25 Corpus Studies of Syntax
- 26 Syntax and Speaking
- 27 Neuroimaging
- Index
- References
Summary
It is common in linguistics to contrast “theoretical” and “experimental” research. Researchers who pursue experimental research are often asked about the theoretical consequences of their work. Such questions generally equate “theoretical” with theories at a specific high level of abstraction, guided by the questions of traditional linguistic theory. These theories focus on the structural representation of sentences in terms of discrete units, without regard to order, time, finer-grained memory encoding, or the neural circuitry that supports linguistic computation. But there is little need for the high-level descriptions to have privileged status. There are interesting theoretical questions at all levels of analysis. A common experience is that we embark on a project guided by its apparent relevance to high-level theoretical debates. And then we discover new theoretical questions at lower levels of analysis that we had not been aware of previously. We illustrate this using examples from many different lines of experimental research.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 587 - 616Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arregui, A., Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 232–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avrutin, S. & Wexler, K. (1992). Development of Principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition, 2, 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.Google Scholar
Boster, C. (1991). Children’s failure to obey Principle B: Syntactic problem or lexical error? Unpublished MS, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, E282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, J. (2016). Naturalistic sentence comprehension in the brain. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. R. & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe. Cognitive Science, 41, 1515–1531.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. R., Stabler, E. P., Van Wagenen, S. E., Luh, W., & Hale, J. (2016). Abstract linguistic structure correlates with temporal activity during naturalistic comprehension. Brain and Language, 157, 81–94.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I., & Wechsler, S. (2015). Lexical Functional Syntax, 2nd ed. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnsky, J. & Staub, A. (2019). Completion tasks reveal misinterpretations of noncanonical sentences. Talk at Psycholinguistics in Iceland – Parsing and Prediction. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Chien, Y. C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Kurenkov, I., Buffinton, J., Kraut, R., & Phillips, C. (2015). How predictions change over time: Evidence from an online cloze paradigm. Poster presented at the 28th annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 803–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Momma, S., Smith, C., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2016). Prediction as memory retrieval: Timing and mechanisms. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, W.-Y. & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusion in the semantic P600 phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, W.-Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 577–596.Google Scholar
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 446–486.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559.Google Scholar
Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 333–365.Google Scholar
Ettinger, A., Linzen, T., & Marantz, A. (2014). The role of morphology in phoneme prediction: Evidence from MEG. Brain and Language, 129, 14–23.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review, 22, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 263–278.Google Scholar
Gagnepain, P., Henson, R. N., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Temporal predictive codes for spoken words in auditory cortex. Current Biology, 22(7), 615–621.Google Scholar
Gaston, P., Huang, N., & Phillips, C. (2017). The logic of syntactic priming and acceptability judgments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e289.Google Scholar
Gaston, P., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2019). Syntactic category does not inhibit lexical competition. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon (Mental Lexicon 2018). Edmonton: University of Alberta. DOI: 10.7939/r3-1t0d-5833Google Scholar
Gaston, P. & Marantz, A. (2018). The time course of contextual cohort effects in auditory processing of category-ambiguous words: MEG evidence for a single “clash” as noun or verb. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 402–423.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 88–124.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.Google Scholar
Grolla, E. (2005). Pronouns as elsewhere elements: Implications for language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Gwilliams, L. & Marantz, A. (2015). Non-linear processing of a linear speech stream: The influence of morphological structure on the recognition of spoken Arabic words. Brain and Language, 147, 1–13.Google Scholar
Hale, J., Dyer, C., Kuncoro, A., & Brennan, J. R. (2018). Finding syntax in human encephalography with beam search. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1806.04127Google Scholar
Hammerly, C., Staub, A., & Dillon, B. (2019). The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70–104.Google Scholar
Han, C., Elouazizi, N., Galeano, C., Görgülü, E., Hedberg, N., Hinnell, J., Jeffrey, M., Kim, K., & Kirby, S. (2012). Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. In Arnett, N. & Bennett, R., eds., Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 153–161.Google Scholar
Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 138–152.Google Scholar
Hestvik, A. & Philip, W. (1999/2000). Binding and coreference in Norwegian child language. Language Acquisition, 8, 171–235.Google Scholar
Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59–73.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 59, 193–224.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. (1988). Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children’s knowledge of binding theory and reference relations. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar
Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.Google Scholar
Kim, C., Kobele, G. M., Runner, J. T., & Hale, J. T. (2011). The acceptability cline in VP-ellipsis. Syntax, 14, 318–354.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. & Aissen, J. (1971). I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 241–246.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 489–530.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 217, 117–129.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470.Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax – Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 27–46.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. & Sarma, J. (1989). Against the bound variable hypothesis of the acquisition of Condition B. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lucas, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 385–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Immediate effects of form-class constraints on spoken word recognition. Cognition, 108(3), 866–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mantegna, F., Hintz, F., Ostarek, M., Alday, P. M., & Huettig, F. (2019). Distinguishing integration and prediction accounts of ERP N400 modulation in language processing through experimental design. Neuropsychologia, 134: 107199. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107199Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H., & Hsu, J. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 121–139.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 155–200.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Kraut, R., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2017). Timing of syntactic and lexical priming reveals structure building mechanisms in production. Talk at the 30th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Luo, Y., Sakai, H., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). Lexical predictions and the structure of semantic memory: EEG evidence from case changes. Talk at the 29th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., & Phillips, C. (2018). Unaccusativity in sentence production. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 181–194.Google Scholar
Muller, H., de Dios Flores, I., & Phillips, C. (2019). Not (just) any licensors cause negative polarity illusions. Talk at Psycholinguistics in Iceland – Parsing and Prediction. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. J., El Karoui, I., Giber, K., Yang, X., Cohen, L., Koopman, H., Cash, S. S., Naccache, L., Hale, J. T., Pallier, C., & Dehaene, S. (2017). Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, E3669-E3678.Google Scholar
Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for the use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1402–1456.Google Scholar
Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, J. K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Philip, W. & Coopmans, P. (1996). The double Dutch delay of Principle B effect. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E., & Zukowski, A., eds., Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 576–587.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2010). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P., & Sohn, S.-O. (eds.), Japanese–Korean Linguistics 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 409–453.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Parker, D. (2014). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78–95.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. Experiments at the Interfaces, 37, 147–180.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar
Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., Brown, H. E., & Berg, J. J. (2018). Keep listening: Grammatical context reduces but does not eliminate activation of unexpected words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 962–973.Google Scholar
Strauss, T. J., Harris, H. D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2007). jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 19–30.Google Scholar
Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Stroud, C. & Phillips, C. (2012). Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language, 120, 107–126.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.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–440.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP Ellipsis, and Interpretation in Child Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Syntactic priming during sentence comprehension: Evidence for the lexical boost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 905–918.Google Scholar
Tyler, L. K. (1984). The structure of the initial cohort: Evidence from gating. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 417–427.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 443–467.Google Scholar
Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L, & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685–712.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar
Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35, 543–583.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., Wagers, M., Liu, F., & Guo, T. (2014). Processing covert dependencies: An SAT study on Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23, 207–232.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Wang, S., & Cui, Y. (2015). Constructing covert dependencies: The case of Mandarin wh-in-situ dependency. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 139–166.Google Scholar
Ye, Z. & Zhou, X. (2008). Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103–115.Google Scholar
Zukowski, A. & Larsen, J. (2004). The production of sentences that we fill their gaps. Poster presented at the 17th annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by