Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T00:42:18.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2015

Morten H. Christiansen  and
Nick Chater
Morten H. Christiansen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 The Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, DenmarkHaskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT 06511 christiansen@cornell.edu
Nick Chater
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom nick.chater@wbs.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Memory is fleeting. New material rapidly obliterates previous material. How, then, can the brain deal successfully with the continual deluge of linguistic input? We argue that, to deal with this “Now-or-Never” bottleneck, the brain must compress and recode linguistic input as rapidly as possible. This observation has strong implications for the nature of language processing: (1) the language system must “eagerly” recode and compress linguistic input; (2) as the bottleneck recurs at each new representational level, the language system must build a multilevel linguistic representation; and (3) the language system must deploy all available information predictively to ensure that local linguistic ambiguities are dealt with “Right-First-Time”; once the original input is lost, there is no way for the language system to recover. This is “Chunk-and-Pass” processing. Similarly, language learning must also occur in the here and now, which implies that language acquisition is learning to process, rather than inducing, a grammar. Moreover, this perspective provides a cognitive foundation for grammaticalization and other aspects of language change. Chunk-and-Pass processing also helps explain a variety of core properties of language, including its multilevel representational structure and duality of patterning. This approach promises to create a direct relationship between psycholinguistics and linguistic theory. More generally, we outline a framework within which to integrate often disconnected inquiries into language processing, language acquisition, and language change and evolution.

Keywords

chunkinggrammaticalizationincremental interpretationlanguage acquisitionlanguage evolutionlanguage processingonline learningpredictionprocessing bottleneckpsycholinguistics

Information

Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e62
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998) Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 38:419–39.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. (2002) Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of prior experience. Cognition 85:43–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G. T. M. (2004) Language-mediated eye movements in the absence of a visual world: The “blank screen paradigm.” Cognition 93:79–87.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73:247–64.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (2009) Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation. Cognition 111:55–71.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Mirkovic, J. (2009) Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 33:583–609.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Steedman, M. J. (1988) Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30:191–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Arbib, M. A. (2005) From monkey-like action recognition to human language: An evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:105–24.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. & Christiansen, M. H. (submitted) The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1-L2 differencesGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. & Clark, E. V. (2011) Why brush your teeth is better than teeth – Children's word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development 7:107–29.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. & Cohen Priva, U. (2013) More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech 56:349–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62:67–82.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2001) The atoms of language. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bannard, C. & Matthews, D. (2008) Stored word sequences in language learning. Psychological Science 19:241–48.Google Scholar
Bar, M. (2004) Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5:617–29.Google Scholar
Bar, M. (2007) The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:280–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, T. & Schlangen, D. (2012) INPRO_iSS: A component for just-in-time incremental speech synthesis. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2012 System Demonstrations, pp. 103–108. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen- Freeman, D. & Schoenemann, T. (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59(Suppl. 1):1–27.Google Scholar
Bellugi, U. & Fisher, S. (1972) A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition 1:173–200.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. (1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. MIT Press.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 17:91–100.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Weinberg, A. S. (1984) The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In: Cognition and the development of language, ed. Hayes, J. R., pp. 279–362. Wiley.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1984) The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7:173–221.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1982) Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89:1–47.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986) Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12:575–86.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. & Loebell, H. (1990) Framing sentences. Cognition 35:1–39.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. & Miller, C. A. (1991) Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23:45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bod, R. (2009) From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy–based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33:752–93.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Leivada, E. (2013) Entangled parametric hierarchies: Problems for an overspecified universal grammar. PLOS ONE 8(9):e72357.Google Scholar
Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L. & Fernald, A. (2012) Knowing a lot for one's age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 112:417–36.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (1987) The evolution of ethnic markers. Cultural Anthropology 2:65–79.Google Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M. & Cleland, A. (2000) Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75:13–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bregman, A. S. (1990) Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Broadbent, D. (1958) Perception and communication. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I. & Chater, N. (2007) A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychological Review 114:539–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown-Schmidt, S. & Konopka, A. E. (2011) Experimental approaches to referential domains and the on-line processing of referring expressions in unscripted conversation. Information 2:302–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S. & Konopka, A. (2015) Processes of incremental message planning during conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22:833–43.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008) Real-time investigation of referential domains in unscripted conversation: A targeted language game approach. Cognitive Science 32:643–84.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002) Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14:261–90.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82:711–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2009) Language universals and usage-based theory. In: Language universals, ed. Christiansen, M. H., Collins, C. & Edelman, S., pp. 17–39. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P., eds. (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & McClelland, J. L. (2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22:381–410.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. D. & Pagliuca, W. (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Scheibman, J. (1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37:575–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. I. (1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58:265–89.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (2000) What's wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23:113–61.Google Scholar
Cann, R. & Kempson, R. (2008) Production pressures, syntactic change and the emergence of clitic pronouns. In: Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, ed. Cooper, R. & Kempson, R., pp. 221–63. College Publications.Google Scholar
Cann, R., Kempson, R. & Wedgwood, D. (2012) Representationalism and linguistic knowledge. In: Philosophy of linguistics, ed. Kempson, R., Fernando, T. & Asher, N., pp. 357–402. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carr, M. F., Jadhav, S. P. & Frank, L. M. (2011) Hippocampal replay in the awake state: A potential substrate for memory consolidation and retrieval. Nature Neuroscience 14:147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1992) Current morphology. Routledge.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113:234–72.Google Scholar
Chater, N., Crocker, M. J. & Pickering, M. J. (1998) The rational analysis of inquiry: The case of parsing. In: Rational models of cognition, ed. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., pp. 441–68. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chater, N., McCauley, S. M. & Christiansen, M. H. (2106) Language as skill: Intertwining comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 89:244–54.Google Scholar
Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Yuille, A. (2006) Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:287–91.Google Scholar
Cherry, E. C. (1953) Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25:975–79.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (1999) Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science 23:157–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 31(05):489–58.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & MacDonald, M. C. (2009) A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning 59(Suppl. 1):126–61.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3):181–253.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, J., Yallop, C. & Fletcher, J. (2007) An introduction to phonetics and phonology, third edition. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clément, S., Demany, L. & Semal, C. (1999) Memory for pitch versus memory for loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:2805–11.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1980) Iconic memory and visible persistence. Perception & Psychophysics 27:183–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, R. P. & Shallice, T. (2006) Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behavior. Psychological Review 113:887–916.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2000) The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:87–185.Google Scholar
Crick, F. & Mitchison, G. (1983) The function of dream sleep. Nature 304:111–14.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crowder, R. G. & Neath, I. (1991) The microscope metaphor in human memory. In: Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honour of Bennet B. Murdock, Jr., ed. Hockley, W. E. & Lewandowsky, S.. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999) Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (2013) The role of linear order in the computation of referential dependencies. Lingua 136:125–44.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., ed. (1982) Slips of the tongue and language production. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dahan, D. (2010) The time course of interpretation in speech comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 19:121–26.Google Scholar
de Vries, M. H., Christiansen, M. H. & Petersson, K. M. (2011) Learning recursion: Multiple nested and crossed dependencies. Biolinguistics 5:10–35.Google Scholar
Dediu, D., Cysouw, M., Levinson, S. C., Baronchelli, A., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Evans, N., Garrod, S., Gray, R., Kandler, A. & Lieven, E. (2013) Cultural evolution of language. In: Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language and religion, ed. Richerson, P. J. & Christiansen, M. H., pp. 303–32. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dehaene, S., Anton, J. L., Campagne, A., Ciuciu, P., Dehaene, G. P., Denghien, I., Jobert, A., Lebihan, D., Sigman, M., Pallier, C. & Poline, J.-P. (2006a) Functional segregation of cortical language areas by sentence repetition. Human Brain Mapping 27:360–71.Google Scholar
Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Hertz-Pannier, L., Dubois, J., Meriaux, S., Roche, A., Sigman, M. & Dehaene, S. (2006b) Functional organization of perisylvian activation during presentation of sentences in preverbal infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:14240–45.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., Burger, L. K. & Svec, W. R. (1997) Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review 104:123–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S. & Chang, F. (2014) The P-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1634):20120394.Google Scholar
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2005) Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8:1117–21.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T. A. & Pylkkänen, L. (2010) Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science 21:629–34.Google Scholar
Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. D. (2011) Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473:79–82.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. (2013) Formulaicity in an agglutinating language: The case of Turkish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9:1–38.Google Scholar
Elliott, L. L. (1962) Backward and forward masking of probe tones of different frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34:1116–17.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24:143–88.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14(2):179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013) Relationship thinking: Enchrony, agency, and human sociality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, T. A. & Matteson, M. E. (1981) From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20:540–52.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Chase, W. G. & Faloon, S. (1980) Acquisition of a memory skill. Science 208:1181–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:429–92.Google Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H. & Monaghan, P. (2006) Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:12203–208.Google Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Monaghan, P., Misyak, J. B. & Christiansen, M. H. (2011) Phonological typicality influences sentence processing in predictive contexts: A reply to Staub et al. (2009) Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37:1318–25.Google Scholar
Federmeier, K. D. (2007) Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 44:491–505.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. & Ferraro, V. (2002) Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(1):11–15.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. (2008) Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 49:209–46.Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, R. (2004) The Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E 70:056135.Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, R. & Liu, H. (2014) The risks of mixing dependency lengths from sequences of different length. Glottotheory 5:143–55.Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A. & Qian, T. (2013) Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLOS ONE 8(10):e77661.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1984) Social cognition. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fitneva, S. A., Christiansen, M. H. & Monaghan, P. (2009) From sound to syntax: Phonological constraints on children's lexical categorization of new words. Journal of Child Language 36:967–97.Google Scholar
Flanagan, J. R. & Wing, A. M. (1997) The role of internal models in motor planning and control: Evidence from grip force adjustments during movements of hand-held loads. Journal of Neuroscience 17:1519–28.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. (1982) The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1998) Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 29:1–36.Google Scholar
Ford, M., Bresnan, J. W. & Kaplan, R. M. (1982) A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In: The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Bresnan, J. W., pp. 727–96. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frank, S. L., Bod, R. & Christiansen, M. H. (2012) How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:4522–31.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. (1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6:291–25.Google Scholar
French, R. M. (1999) Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3:128–35.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. & Garnsey, S. M. (2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80:748–75.Google Scholar
Gallace, A., Tan, H. Z. & Spence, C. (2006) The failure to detect tactile change: A tactile analogue of visual change blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13:300–303.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Bergen, L. & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013) Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:8051–56.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Wexler, K. (1994) Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25:407–54.Google Scholar
Gildea, D. & Temperley, D. (2010) Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science 34:286–310.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1971) Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist's field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7:394–415.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979) On understanding grammar. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C. H., Jones, G., Oliver, I. & Pine, J. M. (2001) Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:236–43.Google Scholar
Gold, E. M. (1967) Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10:447–74.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1998) Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 105:251–79.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bloom, L., Smith, L., Woodward, A., Akhtar, N., Tomasello, M. & Hollich, G., eds. (2000) Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gorrell, P. (1995) Syntax and parsing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graybiel, A. M. (1998) The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 70:119–36.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1967) Logic and conversation. James, William Lectures. Manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009) Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review 116:661–716.Google Scholar
Gurevich, O., Johnson, M. A. & Goldberg, A. E. (2010) Incidental verbatim memory for language. Language and Cognition 2:45–78.Google Scholar
Haber, R. N. (1983) The impending demise of the icon: The role of iconic processes in information processing theories of perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6:1–11.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2009) Reflections on the neurobiology of syntax. In: Biological foundations and origin of syntax. Strüngmann Forum Reports, volume 3, ed. Bickerton, D. & Szathmáry, E., pp. 279–96. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, U. & Nakisa, R. C. (2000) German inflection: Single route or dual route? Cognitive Psychology 41:313–60.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001) A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2–7, 2001, pp. 159–66. Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, J. (2006) Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30:609–42.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999) Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37:1043–68.Google Scholar
Hasson, U., Yang, E., Vallines, I., Heeger, D. J. & Rubin, N. (2008) A hierarchy of temporal receptive windows in human cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience 28(10):2539–50.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569–79.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2009) Language universals and the performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis. In: Language universals, ed. Christiansen, M. H., Collins, C. & Edelman, S., pp. 54–78. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2000) Morphological adjacency constraints: A synthesis. Proceedings of Student Conference in Linguistics 9. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 36:17–29.Google Scholar
Heathcote, A., Brown, S. & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2000) The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7:185–207.Google Scholar
Heider, P., Dery, J. & Roland, D. (2014) The processing of it object relative clauses: Evidence against a fine-grained frequency account. Journal of Memory and Language 75:58–76.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2007) The genesis of grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinojosa, J. A., Moreno, E. M., Casado, P., Munõz, F. & Pozo, M. A. (2005) Syntactic expectancy: An event-related potentials study. Neuroscience Letters 378:34–39.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1988) Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 95:528–51.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E. & Sejnowski, T. J. (1986) Learning and relearning in Boltzmann machines . In: Graphical models: Foundations of neural computation, ed. Irwin, M. J. & Sejnowski, T. J., pp. 45–76. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005) Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010) Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86:366–415.Google Scholar
Honey, C. J., Thesen, T., Donner, T. H., Silbert, L. J., Carlson, C. E., Devinsky, O., Doyle, W. K., Rubin, N., Heeger, D. J. & Hasson, U. (2012) Slow cortical dynamics and the accumulation of information over long timescales. Neuron 76(2):423–34.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hruschka, D., Christiansen, M. H., Blythe, R. A., Croft, W., Heggarty, P., Mufwene, S. S., Pierrehumbert, J. H. & Poplack, S. (2009) Building social cognitive models of language change. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13:464–69.Google Scholar
Hsu, A., Chater, N. & Vitányi, P. (2011) The probabilistic analysis of language acquisition: Theoretical, computational, and experimental analysis. Cognition 120:380–90.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L. & Newport, E. L. (2005) Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development 1:151–95.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. (1999) The evolution of language and languages. In: The evolution of culture, ed. Dunbar, R., Knight, C. & Power, C., pp. 173–93. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2007) A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research 1146:2–22.Google Scholar
Jacoby, L. L., Baker, J. G. & Brooks, L. R. (1989) The priority of the specific: Episodic effects in picture identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15:275–81.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. (2010) Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61:23–62.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Tily, H. (2011) On language “utility”: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2:323–35.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. S., Yao, R., Street, W. N. & Simons, D. J. (2011) Change blindness and inattentional blindness. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2:529–46.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S. M. & Christiansen, M. H. (2013) Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ,Berlin, Germany, July 31–August 3, 2013,, ed. Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N. & Wachsmuth, I., pp. 692–97. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Jones, G. (2012) Why chunking should be considered as an explanation for developmental change before short-term memory capacity and processing speed. Frontiers in Psychology 3:167. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00167.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996) A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20:137–94.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M. L. & Raymond, W. D. (2001) Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In: Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P., pp. 229–54. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Martin, J. H., Kehler, A., Vander Linden, K. & Ward, N. (2000) Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y. (2008) Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistic Compass 2:647–70.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1969) Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In: Punishment and aversive behavior, ed. Campbell, B. A., Church, R. M., pp. 279–96. Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (2007) Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43:365–92.Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. & Gabbay, D. (2001) Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. (1973) Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2:15–47.Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H. & Smith, K. (2008) Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:10681–85.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993) Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language & Cognitive Processes 8:573–633.Google Scholar
Konopka, A. E. (2012) Planning ahead: How recent experience with structures and words changes the scope of linguistic planning. Journal of Memory and Language 66:143–62.Google Scholar
Kraljic, T. & Brennan, S. (2005) Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology 50:194–231.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D. & Urbach, T. P. (2014) The “negatives” and “positives” of prediction in language. In: The Cognitive Neurosciences V, ed. Gazzaniga, M. S. & Mangun, G. R., pp. 649–56. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lashley, K. S. (1951) The problem of serial order in behavior. In: Cerebral mechanisms in behavior: The Hixon Symposium, ed. Jeffress, L. A., pp. 112–46. Wiley.Google Scholar
Lerdahl, F. & Jackendoff, R. (1983) A generative theory of tonal music. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, Y., Honey, C. J., Silbert, L. J. & Hasson, U. (2011) Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story. Journal of Neuroscience 31:2906–15.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (2001) Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98:13464–71.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013) Recursion in pragmatics. Language 89:149–62.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106:1126–77.Google Scholar
Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T. & Rayner, K. (2009) Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:21086–90.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1989) The child's trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:321–34.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988) Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review 95:492–527.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M., Dale, R., Bard, E. G. & Jeuniaux, P. (2012) Behavior matching in multimodal communication is synchronized. Cognitive Science 36:1404–26.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Christiansen, M. H. (2002) Case, word order, and language learnability: Insights from connectionist modeling. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Fairfax, VA, August 2002, pp. 596–601, ed. Gray, W. D. & Schunn, C.. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (1994) Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 9:157–201.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013) How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4:226. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. & Christiansen, M. H. (2002) Reassessing working memory: A comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters & Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109:35–54.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, M. & Seidenberg, M. (1994) The lexical nature of ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101:676–703.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. J. (2003) Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magyari, L. & de Ruiter, J. P. (2012) Prediction of turn-ends based on anticipation of upcoming words. Frontiers in Psychology 3:376. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00376 Google Scholar
Mani, N. & Huettig, F. (2012) Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake – but only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38:843–47.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. & Schütze, H. (1999) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. MIT press.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A. & Fernald, A. (2008) Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. Developmental Science 11:F9–16.Google Scholar
Marcus, M. P. (1980) Theory of syntactic recognition for natural languages. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1976) Early processing of visual information. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences 275:483–519.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982) Vision. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1975) Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science 189:226–28.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K. & Koster, C. (1993) Integrative processes in utterance resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 32:647–66.Google Scholar
Martin, R. C. & He, T. (2004) Semantic STM and its role in sentence processing: A replication. Brain and Language 89:76–82.Google Scholar
Martin, R. C., Shelton, J. R. & Yaffee, L. S. (1994) Language processing and working memory: Neuropsychological evidence for separate phonological and semantic capacities. Journal of Memory and Language 33:83–111.Google Scholar
McCauley, S. M. & Christiansen, M. H. (2011) Learning simple statistics for language comprehension and production: The CAPPUCCINO model. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, July 2011. pp. 619–24, ed. Carlson, L. A., Hölscher, C. & Shipley, T. F.. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
McCauley, S. M. & Christiansen, M. H. (2014b) Reappraising lexical specificity in children's early syntactic combinations. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp. 1000–1005. ed. Bello, P., Guarini, M., McShane, M., & Scassellati, B.. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
McCloskey, M. & Cohen, N. J. (1989) Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 24:109–65.Google Scholar
Mermillod, M., Bugaïska, A. & Bonin, P. (2013) The stability-plasticity dilemma: Investigating the continuum from catastrophic forgetting to age-limited learning effects. Frontiers in Psychology 4:504. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00504.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971) Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90:227–34.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (1996) Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture-word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language 35:477–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2):81–97.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. & Pribram, K. H. (1960) Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Taylor, W. G. (1948) The perception of repeated bursts of noise. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 20:171–82.Google Scholar
Misyak, J. B. & Christiansen, M. H. (2010) When “more” in statistical learning means “less” in language: Individual differences in predictive processing of adjacent dependencies. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference, Portland, OR, August 11–14, 2010, ed. Catrambone, R. & Ohlsson, S., pp. 2686–91. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Monaghan, P. & Christiansen, M. H. (2008) Integration of multiple probabilistic cues in syntax acquisition. In: Trends in corpus research: Finding structure in data (TILAR Series), ed. Behrens, H., pp. 139–63. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. & Demuth, K. (1996) Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morrill, G. (2010) Categorial grammar: Logical syntax, semantics, and processing. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. (2008) Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Murdock, B. B. Jr., (1968) Serial order effects in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement 1–15.Google Scholar
Nadig, A. S. & Sedivy, J. C. (2002) Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children's on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science 13:329–36.Google Scholar
Navon, D. & Miller, J. O. (2002) Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology 44:193–251.Google Scholar
Neal, R. M. & Hinton, G. E. (1998) A view of the EM algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants. In: Learning in graphical models, ed. Jordan, M. I., pp. 355–68. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. (2010) Locality in vowel harmony. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A. & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981) Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In: Cognitive skills and their acquisition, ed. Anderson, J. R., pp. 1–55. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I. & Veres, C. (1997) Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36:569–87.Google Scholar
Niyogi, P. & Berwick, R. C. (1996) A language learning model for finite parameter spaces. Cognition 61:161–93.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. & Shallice, T. (1986) Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In: Consciousness and self-regulation, ed. Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E. & Shapiro, D., pp. 1–18. Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115:39.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. & Reboul, A. (2008) Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:425–31.Google Scholar
Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S. & Pisoni, D. B. (1994) Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science 5:42–46.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2005) Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2013) The illusion of language acquisition. Approaches to Bilingualism 3:253–85.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2015a) Anaphora and the case for emergentism. In: The handbook of language emergence, ed. MacWhinney, B. & O'Grady, W., pp. 100–22. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., eds. (1998) Rational models of cognition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohno, T. & Mito, S. (1988) Just-in-time for today and tomorrow. Productivity Press.Google Scholar
Orr, D. B., Friedman, H. L. & Williams, J. C. C. (1965) Trainability of listening comprehension of speeded discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology 56:148–56.Google Scholar
Orwin, M., Howes, C. & Kempson, R. (2013) Language, music and interaction. College Publications.Google Scholar
Padó, U., Crocker, M. W. & Keller, F. (2009) A probabilistic model of semantic plausibility in sentence processing. Cognitive Science 33:794–838.Google Scholar
Pani, J. R. (2000) Cognitive description and change blindness. Visual Cognition 7:107–26.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (1988) Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception and Psychophysics 44:369–78.Google Scholar
Pavani, F. & Turatto, M. (2008) Change perception in complex auditory scenes. Perception and Psychophysics 70:619–29.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M. & Bock, K. (1999) Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 41:427–56.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, F., Coupé, C. & Marsico, E. (2011) A cross-language perspective on speech information rate. Language 87:539–58.Google Scholar
Pereira, P. & Schabes, Y. (1992) Inside–outside reestimation from partially bracketed corpora. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Newark, DE, June 28–July 2, 1992, pp. 128–35, ed. Thompson, H. S.. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Phillips, B. S. (2006) Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (1996) Merge right: An approach to constituency conflicts. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, volume 15, Los Angeles, CA, March 1994, pp. 381–95, ed. Camacho, J., Choueiri, L. & Watanabe, M.. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2003) Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34:37–90.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. (2011) Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:3526–29.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. (2012) The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122:280–91.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998) The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39:633–51.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27:169–226.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2007) Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:105–10.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2013a) An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36: 329–47.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2002) Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory Phonology VII. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M., Freudenthal, D., Krajewski, G. & Gobet, F. (2013) Do young children have adult-like syntactic categories? Zipf's law and the case of the determiner. Cognition 127:345–60.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984) Language learnability and language development. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994) The language instinct: How the mind creates language. William Morrow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:707–27.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988) On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28:73–193.Google Scholar
Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. (1998) Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 38:265–82.Google Scholar
Poulet, J. F. A. & Hedwig, B. (2006) New insights into corollary discharges mediated by identified neural pathways. Trends in Neurosciences 30:14–21.Google Scholar
Pulman, S. G. (1985) A parser that doesn't. Proceedings of the Second European Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Geneva, Switzerland, March 1985, pp. 128–35, Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1990) Connectionist models of recognition memory: Constraints imposed by learning and forgetting functions. Psychological Review 97:285–308.Google Scholar
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M. H. (2007a) Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57:1–23.Google Scholar
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M. H. (2007b) Word-chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60:161–70.Google Scholar
Redington, M., Chater, N. & Finch, S. (1998) Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science 22:425–469.Google Scholar
Remez, R. E., Fellowes, J. M. & Rubin, P. E. (1997) Talker identification based on phonetic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23:651–66.Google Scholar
Remez, R. E., Ferro, D. F., Dubowski, K. R., Meer, J., Broder, R. S. & Davids, M. L. (2010) Is desynchrony tolerance adaptable in the perceptual organization of speech? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 72:2054–58.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. & Christiansen, M. H., eds. (2013) Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language and religion. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Elman, J. & Ferreira, V. (2006) Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 98:245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986) On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In: Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume 2: Psychological and biological models, ed. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. & the PDP Research Group, pp. 216–71. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. & the PDP Research Group (1986a) Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, volumes 1 and 2. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saad, D., ed. (1998) On-line learning in neural networks. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. & Herschensohn, J. (2010) The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua 120:2022–39.Google Scholar
Sahin, N. T., Pinker, S., Cash, S. S., Schomer, D. & Halgren, E. (2009) Sequential processing of lexical, grammatical, and articulatory information within Broca's area. Science 326:445.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Aronoff, M. (2005) The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:2661–65.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A. & Wrisberg, C. A. (2004) Motor learning and performance, third edition. Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
Schultz, W., Dayan, P. & Montague, P. R. (1997) A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science 275:1593–99.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. (1997) Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science 275:1599–603.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. & McClelland, J. L. (1989) A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96:523–68.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:623–56.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. (1978) The adjacency constraint and the theory of morphology. North East Linguistics Society 8:189–97.Google Scholar
Sigman, M. & Dehaene, S. (2005) Parsing a cognitive task: A characterization of the mind's bottleneck. PLOS Biology 3(2):e37. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030037.Google Scholar
Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D. & Hasson, U. (2014) Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:E4687–96.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63:129–38.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1982) Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simons, D. J. & Levin, D. T. (1998) Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 5:644–49.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K. & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2011) Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37:776–784.Google Scholar
Smith, K. & Kirby, S. (2008) Cultural evolution: Implications for understanding the human language faculty and its evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:3591–603.Google Scholar
Smith, K. & Wonnacott, E. (2010) Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition 116:444–49.Google Scholar
Smith, M. & Wheeldon, L. (1999) High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition 73:205–46.Google Scholar
Snedeker, J. & Trueswell, J. (2003) Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language 48:103–30.Google Scholar
Sperling, G. (1960) The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 74:1–29.Google Scholar
Staub, A. & Clifton, C. Jr., (2006) Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either … or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32:425–36.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1987) Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5:403–39.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (2000) The syntactic process. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, G. J., Honey, C. J. & Hasson, U. (2013) A place for time: The spatiotemporal structure of neural dynamics during natural audition. Journal of Neurophysiology 110(9):2019–26.Google Scholar
Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J. & Hasson, U. (2010) Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. PNAS 107:14425–30.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-Y. & Levinson, S. C. (2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:10587–92.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1986) Some developments in research on language behavior. In: Behavioral and social science: Fifty years of discovery: In commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the “Ogburn Report,” recent social trends in the United States, ed. Smelser, N. J. & Gerstein, D. R., pp. 208–48. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. & Crocker, M. W. (1996) Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes 11:449–94.Google Scholar
Swaab, T., Brown, C. M. & Hagoort, P. (2003) Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language 86:326–43.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M. & Sedivy, J. C. (1995) Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268:1632–34.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L. & Goodman, N. D. (2011) How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science 331:1279–85.Google Scholar
Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C. & Gil, M. (1999) Pragmatic constraint on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25:1347–65.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J. & Bever, T. G. (2001) Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. (1964) Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin 20:12–16.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. & Schmidt, H. (1982) Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology 14:107–41.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. & Baayen, H. (2010) Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In: Perspectives on formulaic language, ed. Wood, D., pp. 151–67. Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G. & Westbury, C. (2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61:569–613.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2011) Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994) Towards a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In: Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. Clifton, C., Frazier, L. & Rayner, K., pp. 155–79. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. & Logrip, M. L. (1999) The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73:89–134.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. (1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33:285–318.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & 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 19:528–53.Google Scholar
Valian, V., Solt, S. & Stewart, J. (2009) Abstract categories or limited-scope formulae? The case of children's determiners. Journal of Child Language 36:743–78.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., 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 31:443–67.Google Scholar
van den Brink, D., Brown, C. M. & Hagoort, P. (2001) Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13:967–85.Google Scholar
Van Everbroeck, E. (1999) Language type frequency and learnability: A connectionist appraisal. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 1999, pp. 755–60, ed. Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C.. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. & Liversedge, S. P. (2003) The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29:128–39.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1969) Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45:9–25.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y., ed. (1977) The lexicon in phonological change. Mouton.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. & Cheng, C.-C. (1977) Implementation of phonological change: The Shaung-feng Chinese case. In: The lexicon in phonological change, ed. Wang, W. S.-Y., pp. 86–100. Mouton.Google Scholar
Warren, P. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1987) Continuous uptake of acoustic cues in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics 41:262–75.Google Scholar
Warren, R. M., Obusek, C. J., Farmer, R. M. & Warren, R. P. (1969) Auditory sequence: Confusion of patterns other than speech or music. Science 164:586–87.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2003) Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In: Determinants of grammatical variation in English, ed. Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B., pp. 119–54. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, J. & Höhle, B., eds. (2001) Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M. & Kutas, M. (2004) Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:1272–88.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. & Nolkn, S. B. (1986) The duration of syllables in American Sign Language. Language and Speech 29:263–80.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. (2006) Comparing sign language and speech reveals a universal limit on short-term memory capacity. Psychological Science 17:682–83.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1972) Understanding natural language. Cognitive Psychology 3:1–191.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J. & Flanagan, J. R. (2011) Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12:739–51.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2002) Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2013) Ontogeny and phylogeny of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:6324–27.Google Scholar
Zhu, L., Chen, Y., Torrable, A., Freeman, W. & Yuille, A. L. (2010) Part and appearance sharing: Recursive compositional models for multi-view multi-object detection. In: IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPRW 2010), San Francisco, CA, June 2010, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar