REFERENCES

Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycho linguistic Research, 18,129-144.

Abrams, K., & Bever, T.G. (1969). Syntactic structure modifies attention during speech perception and recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 280-290.

Altmann, G. (1987). Modularity and interaction in sentence processing. In J.L.

Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human

sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 198-238.

Anderson, J.R., & Bower, G.H. (1973).

Washington, DC: V.H. Winston.

Human associative memory.

Anderson J. R., & Hastie, R. (1974). Individuation and reference in memory: Proper names and definite descriptions. Cognitive P~ychology, 6, 495-514.

Anderson R. C., & McGaw, B. (1973). On the representation of the meanings of general terms. Journal o.fExperimental Psychology, 101, 301-306.

Anderson, R.C., & Ortony, A. (1975). On putting apples into bottles: A problem

of polysemy. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 167-180.

Barker, C. (1991). Possessive descriptions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Bartels, C., & Kingston, J. (1996). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus . In M. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Experimental Linguistics, 19, 1-26.

143

144 REFERENCES

Beckman, J. (1996). Double objects, definiteness and extractions: A processing perspective. In M. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), University ql Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Experimental Linguistics, 19, 27-70.

Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. (1995). Distributivity and negation. Manuscript, UCLA.

Bennan, S. (1991). On the semantics and logical form ofwh-clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Bever, T.G., & Townsend, D.J. (1979). Perceptual mechanisms and fonnal properties of main and subordinate clauses. In W.E. Cooper & E.C.T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (1996). Investigating focus- accent-argument structure. In M. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Experimental Linguistics, 19, 117-132.

Bock, K., & Mazella, J.R. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new infonnation. Some consequences for comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 11,64-67.

Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Considerations of some problems in comprehension. In W.G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press.

Bransford, J.D., Barclay, lR., & Franks, J.J. (1972). Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 193-209.

Brennan, S.E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137-168.

Britt, M.A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing ofPPs. Journal qfMemory and Language, 33, 251-283 .

REFERENCES 145

Britt, M.A, Perfetti, C.A, Garrod, S., & Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing in discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31,293-314.

van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inference and coherence. In M.A Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.

Cacciari, c., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668-683.

Carlson, G., & Tanenhaus, M. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol 21: Thematic relations. London: Academic Press.

Carreiras, M., Garnham, A, & o akhill , J. (1993). The use of superficial and meaning-based representations in interpreting pronouns: Evidence from Spanish. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 93-116.

Carroll, J.M., & Tanenhaus, M. (1975). Functional clauses are the primary unity of sentence segmentation . Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Catlin, J., & Micham, D.L. (1975). Semantic representations as procedures for verification. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 209-225.

Chafe, W.L. (1976). Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.

Chang, F.R. (1980). Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference. Memory and Cognition, 8, 56-64.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 239-282.

146 REFERENCES

Clancy, P.M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W.L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production, Vol 3: Advances in discourse processes. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Clark, H.H. , & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Some

experimental results. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cowart, W., & Cairns, H. (1987). Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within

syntactic processing: Some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic

constraints. Memory and Cognition, 15, 318-331.

Crain, S., Ni, W., & Conway, L. (1994). Learning, parsing and modularity. In C.

Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crain, S., Ni., W., Shankweiler, D., Conway, L., & Braze, D. (1996). Meaning,

memory and modularity. In C. Schiitze (Ed.), MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 9, 27-44.

Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use

of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A Zwicky

(Eds.), Natural language parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cuetos, F ., & Mitchell, D.C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing:

Restrictions on the use of Late Closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.

Cutler, A , & Fodor, J.A (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension.

Cognition, 7, 49-59.

REFERENCES 147

Cutler, A, & Foss, D.J. (1977). On the role of sentence stress on sentence processing. Language and Speech, 29, 233-25l.

Cutler, A, & Swinney, D. (1980). Development of the comprehension of semantic focus in young children. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. October, 1980.

De1in, J. (1995). Presupposition and shared knowledge in It-clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 97-120.

Dell, G., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent

information during the processing of anaphoric references in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 121-132.

De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dickey, M. (1995). Constraint on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pronouns. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans, January 1995 .

Diesing, M. (1990). The syntactic roots of semantic partition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Donellan, K. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75,281-304.

Dooling, D.1., & Mullet, R.L. (1973). Locus of thematic effects in retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 404-406.

Eefting, w. (1992). The effect of accentuation and word duration on the naturalness of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society ojAmerica, 91, 411-420.

Ene, M. (1990). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22,1-26.

148 REFERENCES

Erteschik-Shir, N. (1993). The dynamics of focus structure. Manuscript, Ben Gurion University.

von Fintel, K (1991). Discourse chunking. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Fodor, J.A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fodor, J.A, Bever, T.G., & Garrett, M.F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycho linguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fodor, J.D. (1989). Empty categories in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 155-209.

Fodor, J.D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407-434.

Forster, K (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W.E. Cooper & E.C. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Forster, K1., & Olbrei, 1. (1973). Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis. Cognition, 2, 319-347.

Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Frazier, L. (1985). Modularity and the representational hypothesis. In S. Berman, J. Choe & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 15,131-144.

REFERENCES 149

Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and peiformance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Frazier, L. (1990). Exploring the architecture of the language system. In G.

Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycho linguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Frazier, L. (1995). Issues of representation in psycholinguistics. In J.L. Miller & P.D. Eimas (Eds.) Handbook of perception and cognition, vol. 11: Speech, language and communication. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (in press) Comprehension of sluiced sentences.

Language and Cognitive Processes .

Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (in progress). Processing 'd-linked' phrases.

Frazier, L., Clifton, c., & Koh, S. (in progress). Context and sentence processing: Presuppositional interpretations and restrictor clauses.

Frazier, L., Henstra, J., & Flores d'Arcais, G.B. (1996). Finding candidate antecedents: Phrase or conceptual entities. In M. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Experimental Linguistics, 19, 193-238.

Frazier, L., Plunkett, B., & Clifton, C. (1996). Reconstruction and scope. In M.

Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 19, 239-260.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movement in the analysis of structurally ambiguous

sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.

150 REFERENCES

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing

multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200.

Frazier, L., Rayner K. , & Pacht, J. (in progress) . Taking on semantic commitments II: Collective vs. distributive readings.

Garnham, A (1987). Mental models as representations of discourse and text. New York: Ellis Horword Limited.

Garnham, A (1994). The past five years: Sorting out some muddles about mental

models. Presented at the Lake Geneva Language Processing Conference. Lake

Geneva, Wisconsin.

Garnham, A, Oakhill, 1. , Ehrlich. M .F., & Carreiras, M. (1995). Representations

and processes in the interpretation of pronouns: New evidence from Spanish and

French. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 41-62.

Garnsey, S.M., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Chapman, R.M. (1989). Evoked potentials

and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycho linguistic Research, 18,5 1-73.

Garrod, S.c., & Sanford, AS. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse

context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M.A

Gemsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.

Gergely, G. (1992). Focus based inferences in sentence comprehension. In I. Sag

& A Szabolcsi (Eds.) . Lexical matters. Center for the Study of Language and

Infonnation, Stanford University.

Gemsbacher, M.A (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access.

Cognition , 32, 99-156.

Gemsbacher, M.A (1991). Comprehending conceptual anaphors . Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 81-106.

REFERENCES 151

Gernsbacher, M.A., (Ed.) (1994). Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.

Gibson, E.A.F. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.

Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996).

Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition , 59, 23-59.

Gil, D. (1982). Quantifier scope, linguistic vanatIon and natural language

semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 421-472.

Gil, D. (1995). Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A.

Kratzer, & B.B. Partee (Eds.) Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Givon, T. (J 987). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givon (Ed.) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Glenberg, A. (1994). Mental models aren't very spatial. Presented at the Lake

Geneva Language Processing Conference. Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.

Gordon, P.c., Grosz, B.J., & Gilliom, L.A. (1993). Pronouns, names and the

centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.M. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Seminar Press.

Grimshaw, 1. (1991). Extended projections. Manuscript, Brandeis University.

Grimshaw, 1. (1993). Minimal projection, heads, and optimality. Manuscript,

Rutgers University.

152 REFERENCES

Grosz, B. (1981). Focusing and description in naturallanguage dialogues. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge University Press.

Grosz, B., Joshi, A.K., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 44-50.

Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (1994). Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In C. Clifton, L.Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hankamer, J., & Sag, LA. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7,391-428.

Haviland, S.E., & Clark, H.H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension . .Iournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13,512-521.

Heim, 1. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Heim, 1., Lasnik, H., & May, R. (1991). Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry, 22,63-102.

Hornby, P.A. (1972). The psychological subject and predicate. Cognitive P:;ychology, 3, 632-642.

Hornby, P.A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition . .Iournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 530-538.

REFERENCES 153

Hornstein, N. (1994). LF: The grammar of Logical Form from GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hudson, S.B., Tanenhaus, M., & Dell, G.S. (1986). Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 96-109.

loup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball (Ed.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 4. New York: Academic Press.

Jarvella, R. (1971). Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 409-416.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1969). On understanding logically complex sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 1-13.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1977). Reasoning with quantifiers. In P.N. Johnson-Laird & P.e. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1981a). Comprehension as the construction of mental models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B295, 353-374.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1981b). Mental models of meaning. In A. Joshi, I. Sag & B. Nash-Webber (Eds.), Linguistic structure and discourse setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson-Laird, P.N., Robins, C., & Velicogna. (1974). Memory for words. Nature, 251-705.

Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.

154 REFERENCES

Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Gronendijk (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 1. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

Kamp, 11., & Partee, B.H. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 129-191.

Kintsch, W. (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. In M.A. Gemsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.

Kratzer, A. (1989). Stage and individual level predicates. Papers on quantification, NSF Grant Report, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Kuno, S. (1995). Null elements in parallel structures in Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kurtzman, H., & MacDonald, M.E. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope and ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243-279.

Ladd, D.R. (1980). The stnlcture of intonational meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Livnat, M. (1984). Focus constructions in Somali. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Urbana.

Lombardi, L., & Potter, M.e. (1992). The regeneration of syntax in short term memory. Journal ofMemOlY and Language, 31, 713-733.

Lucas, M.M., Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory and Cognition, 18, 611-631.

MacDonald, M. (1989). Priming effects from gaps to antecedents. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 35-56.

REFERENCES 155

MacDonald, M.C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity

resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.

MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). The lexical

nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. P::,ychological Review, 101, 676-703.

Malt, B. (1982). Anaphora and discourse structure. Doctoral dissertation,

Stantord University.

Mani, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. (1982). The mental representation of Spatial and

descriptions. AlemOlY and Cognition, 10, 181-187.

Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Tyler, L.K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken

language comprehension. Cognition, 8, 1-72.

Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. (1995). Implicit arguments in

sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 357-382.

McGlone, M.S., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 167-190.

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1980). The comprehension and memory structures

involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 668-682.

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inferences during reading. Psychological Review, 99,440-466.

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1997). Discourse, meaning, syntax, and verb phrase anaphors. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual CUNY Conference on Human

Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA.

McKoon, G., Ward, G., Ratcliff, R., & Sproat, R. (1993). Morphosyntactic and

pragmatic factors affecting the accessibility of discourse entities. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 56-75.

156 REFERENCES

Micham, D.L., Catlin, J., van Derveer, N.J., & Loveland, K.A. (1980). Lexical and structural cues to quantifier scope relations. Journal of Psycho linguistic Research, 9, 367-377.

Mitchell, D.C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M.A. Gemsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycho linguistics. New York: Academic Press.

Mueller-Lust, R., & Gibbs, Jr., R.W. (1991). Inferring the interpretation of attributive and referential definite descriptions. Discourse Processes, 14, 107-131.

Munn, A.B. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.

Murphy, G. (1984). Establishing and accessing referents in discourse. Memory and Cognition, 12, 489-497.

Murphy, G. (1990). Noun Phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 259-288.

Murphy, G. (1992). Comprehension and memory of personal reference: The use of social information in language processing. Discourse Process, 15,337-356.

Newstead, S.E. (1994). Do verbs act as implicit quantifiers? Journal of

Semantics, 11, 215-230.

Ni, W., & Crain, S. (1990). How to resolve ambiguities. Proceedings of NELS

20,2,414-427.

Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Side-stepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283-334.

Nicol, J. (1988). Co-reference processing during sentence comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

REFERENCES 157

O'Brien, E.J., Duffy, S.A., & Myers, J.L. (1986). Anaphoric inferences during

reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 346-352.

Onishi, K.H., & Murphy, G.L. (1993). Metaphoric references: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory and Cognition , 21,

763-772.

Osterhout, L. (1994). Event-related brain potentials as tools for comprehending language comprehension. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.),

Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P.J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by

syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.

Partee, B.B. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In C. Wiltshire, B. Music & R. Graczyk (Eds.), Papers from CLS25. Chicago: Chicago

Linguistic Society. 342-365.

Partee, B.H. (1991). Topic, focus and quantification. SALT 1,159-187.

Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In EJ.

Reuland A.G.B. Meulen (Eds.), The Representation of Indefinites. Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Peterson, R.R, Burgess, C., Dell, G.S., & Eberhard, K.M. (ms.). Dissociation between syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension.

Pickering, M., & Traxler, M. (1994). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths. Presented at the Experimental Psychology Society, Exeter, July, 1994.

Pierrehumbert, lB., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational

contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan & M.E. Pollack, (Eds.), Intentions in Communication Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

158 REFERENCES

Pinkal, M. (1996). Vagueness, ambiguity and underspecification. SALT VI, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Plunkett, B. (1991). The parsing of anaphor binding and levels of interpretation. In B. Plunkett (Ed.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. 15,201-266.

Poesio, M., & Zucchi, A. (1992). On telescoping. In C. Barker & D. Dowty (Eds.) Semantics and Linguistics Theory, 2.

Portner, P. (1989). Processing indefinite noun phrases in quantified sentences. Cognitive Science paper 89-3. Amherst, MA: Five College Cognitive Science Program.

Potter, M.C., & Faulconer, B.A. (1979). Understanding noun phrases. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 509-522.

Potts, G.R. (1972). Information processing strategies used in the encoding of linear orderings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 727-740.

Potts, G.R. (1973). Memory for redundant information. ,~lemory and Cognition, 1,467-470.

Potts, G.R. (1974). Storing and retrieving information about ordered relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 431-439.

Pritchett, B.L., & Whitman, J.B. (1995). Syntactic representation and interpretive preference. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rad6, J. (1993). Processing reflexives in Hungarian. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts.

Rad6, J. (1994). Processing moved antecedents. Poster presented at the Seventh Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, March 1994.

REFERENCES 159

Rad6, J. (1997). Topic andfocus: Processing sentences in Hungarian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.

Rayner, K., & Duffy, S.A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation time in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14,191-201.

Reder, L.M., & Kusbit, G.W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385-406.

Redeker, G. (1993). Discourse markers as attentional cues to discourse structure. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 1993, Los Angeles.

Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53-93.

Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E.J. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In J. Kosta & E.J. Reuland (Eds.), Long distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Rooth, M. (1992). A Theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116.

Runner, J. (1995). Noun phrase licensing and intelpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

160 REFERENCES

Sachs, J.S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437-442.

Sag, LA., & Hankamer, 1. (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 325-345.

Sanford, A.J., & Garrod, S.C. (1994). Selective processing in text understanding. In M.A. Gemsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego:

Academic Press.

Sanford, A . .T., Moxey, L.M., & Paterson, K. (1994). Psychological studies of quantifiers. Journal of Semantics, 10, i 53-170.

Schafer, A. (1996). Bounded projection: Constraints on focus interpretation. In E. Benedicto & S. Tomioka (Eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Focus, Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Schafer, A. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.

Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, c., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163 .

Schwarzschild, R. (1994). Plurals, presuppositions and the source of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 201-248.

Seidenberg, M., Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, I.M., & Bienowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meaning of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14,489- 537.

Seidenberg, M.S., Waters, G.S., Sanders, M., & Langer, P. (1984). Pre- and post­lexical loci of contextual effects on word perception. Memory and Cognition, 12, 315-328

Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

REFERENCES 161

Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence Prosody: Intonation stress and phrasing. In J.

Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Basil Blackwell.

Simpson, G. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.

Singer, M. (1994). Discourse inference processing. In M.A. Gemsbacher (Ed.),

Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.

Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Referential context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.),

Perspectives on Sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Steedman, MJ., & Altmann, G.T.M. (1989). Ambiguity in context: A reply. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI 77-280.

Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension:

(Re-)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.

Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. (1990). Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 257-280.

Tanenhaus, M., Carlson, G., & Seidenberg, M. (1985). Do listeners compute linguistic representation? In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A. Zwicky (Eds.) Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tunstall, S. (1994). Extraposition and the processing of DPs. Manuscript,

University of Massachusetts.

Tunstall, S. (1996). Processing quantifier scope in dative sentences. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, San Diego, CA, Jan.

1996.

162 REFERENCES

Tunstall, S. (in progress). The interpretation of quantifiers and indefinites: semantics and processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Van Lehn, K.A. (1978). Determining the scope of English quantifiers. M.A.

thesis, MIT.

Vonk, W. (1991). Specificity of referring and the comprehension of text structure. Presented at Workshop on Discourse Structure. Edinburgh, April

1991.

Vonk, W., Hustinx, L., & Simons, W. (1992). The use of referential expressions

in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 301-335.

Walther, C. (1995). Processing reflexives in coordinate NPs: A question of point­

of-view. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 39-78.

Ward, G., Sproat, R., & McKoon, G. (1991). A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language, 67, 439-473.

Webber, B. (1991). Structure and ostensions in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 107-136.

Wisniewski, E.J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.

Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434-453 .

Wittenburg, K. (1987). Extraposition from NP as anaphora. Syntax and Semantics, 20. New York: Academic Press.

NOTES

l. Cross-modal priming typically involves auditory presentation of a sentence and visual presentation of a naming or lexical decision target. If the target word is responded to quickly, relative to a control, this indicates a semantic relation between the meaning of target and the processing operations perceivers were performing at the point when the target was presented. See Swinney (1979).

2. McKoon and Ratcliff (1997) reports natural occurrences of do so with a passivized antecedent in contexts emphasizing activity. In such contexts subjects rate the passivized antecedents as fully natural. This demonstrates that the antecedent for a surface anaphor need not be fully parallel to the form of the anaphor.

3. There exist several interesting studies of detinite descriptions that go beyond the issues of NP anaphora discussed here. Mueller-Lust and Gibbs (1991) show that, in general, referential definite descriptions are read faster than attributive ones in contexts where a discourse antecedent is already given, but not in examples where the referent of the definite description is a famous individual whose identity can be inferred directly without reactivating an established discourse entity.

In a study of metaphoric interpretation, Onishi and Murphy (1993) show that metaphoric interpretations take longer to process than literal ones when they occur in the topic (e.g. , The creampujJ didn '{ didn '( show up.) but not when the occur in the predicate (e.g., Mary is an icebox.).

4. Intersective, but not subsective, adjectives may appear in predicate position. Presumably this implies that a categoriaI distinction among adjectives must be registered in the lexicon and used to govern the distributionlinterpretation of adjectives. Tom Roeper (personal communication) points out that intersective adjectives may occur postnominally (a smoker old andJrail) whereas subsective adjective may not (a smoker heavy and frequent).

5. I am extremely grateful to Kai von Fintel for an illuminating discussion of subsective interpretations. The idea that subsective interpretations involve contextualizing the adjective by allowing the denotation of the noun to fix the interpretation of a context variable of the adjective is due to him.

6. Apparently some arguments can never be left implicit, such as the goal argument of a double object verb, as in (i). Compare (i) to (ii) where the goal is expressed in a PP and the sentence is considerably more acceptable.

(i) * John offered a kiss but I don't know who. (ii) John offered a kiss but [ don't know to who(m).

I am grateful to Tom Roeper for pointing this out, and for the example.

163

164 NOTES

7. Makes-sense judgment tasks involve self-paced reading of a sentence or discourse with the added decision (yes/no) of whether the current fragment makes sense given the preceding context.

8. The possibility that implicit arguments are entered only into the discourse representation, not LF, highlights questions about how the antecedent of PRO is established in Mauner, Carlson and Tanenhaus (1995).

9. A'-movement involves movement to a non-argument position, typically the specifier of CPo

10. A thematically-interpreted representation seems likely because the thematic role for the antecedent of a reflexive often must be higher on an appropriate thematic hierarchy than the thematic role of the reflexive itself.

11. It is unclear at present whether each constituent of a sentence is interpreted immediately or if it is only, say, each extended maximal projection that is. I will simply side-step this issue here. Kamp and Partee (1995) apply the Head Primacy Principle only to nominals. Especially if the principle is extended to other categories, such as VP, questions arise about how much interpretation of arguments of verbs can be accomplished strictly on the basis of Case markers in languages with phrase-final heads.

12. Clearly the rules proposed by Selkirk are not intended to be universal. As emphasized in the text, pitch accent plays a role in focus in some languages besides English (e.g. Dutch and German), but not in others (e.g. Swedish where a pitch accent is related to (main) word stress or Serbo-Croatian and Japanese).

13. It is of considerable interest to know whether a comparable generalization holds in languages other than English, in particular those which do not express focus prosodically.

14. Minimal Commitment is used in several distinct ways in the psycholinguistic literature, including cases where it predicts a preference for computing underspecified representations. This latter is not the sense intended by Crain et al. (\ 994). To avoid confusion, in the text I use the term "Minimally Disconfirmable" interpretations to indicate that the principle is intended by Crain et al. to chose among fully specified interpretations.

15. The repeated name penalty is probably not exactly a repeated name penalty, as Tom Roeper has pointed out to me. Consider contexts like: If President Clinton thinks President Clinton should win then he should do things that benefit him rather than those who oppose President Clinton. In certain contexts like this, the repeated name probably has a different interpretation than a pronoun would in the same position.

16. The subject preference cannot be attributed to the unavailability of the prepositional object (goal) as antecedent for two reasons. First, the subject preference held equally for

NOTES 165

(29d) and (29c), despite the presence of preposition only in (29c). Second, an exit poll was conducted following the experiment described in connection with (30). Restricting attention to the group of subjects who happily accepted propositional goals as antecedents, a strong subject preference still was observed.

17. Assuming that phrases containing predicates are themselves interpretive domains, as well as the thematic processing domain they are associated with, (ia,b) will also serve as interpretive domains.

a. (CP)

I (lP)

I VP

/, V adjunct predicate

adjunct clause

c. [NP (NP) and NP]

b. (PP)

I (DP)

I NP

A N relative clause

Frazier and Clifton (1996) argue that adjuncts as in (ia), and relative clause modifiers, as in (ib), "associate" with the current (preceding) thematic processing domain and thus are interpreted with that domain. Adopting Munn's (1993) theory of NP conjunction, each conjunct is a predicate (predicated of the Boolean operator (B) "and", thereby receiving whatever theta-role the operator distributes) as in (ii).

(ii) BP

A Spec BP

I A I Spec B'

I I A I I B NP

I I I NP NP and

1R. The intuition about (36b) is very subtle, I think. Perhaps the dispreference for moved antecedents that has been established for ref1exives (see section 3.6) also applies to antecedents for lexical variables .

19. Diesing (1990) proposes that indefinites left within the VP at LF receive an existential interpretation. In other words, they are bound by a covert existential quantifier associated with VP.

166 NOTES

20. Emmon Bach points out that within the restrictor clause embedding may be necessary or, at least, some means is needed to capture the fact that (i) and (ii) have different presuppositions. Sentence (i) presupposes or implies that there are other houses on the corner whereas (ii) implies that there are other houses with big picture windows.

(i) The house that is on the corner that has a big picture window. (ii) The house that has a big picture window that is on the corner.

21. Singular indefinites in subject position cannot correspond to topics and necessarily introduce a new discourse entity or index card, at least on approaches like that advocated by Erteschik-Shir (1993). However, bare plurals on this view may introduce a discourse topic if they are interpreted generically.

22. As an anonymous reviewer pointed out to me, this principle (8) may be formulated too narrowly. Not just definite NPs but all 'strong' NPs may immediately initiate a search for a restrictor clause. Strong NPs include quantifiers like most, as well as definites. Strong NPs are identifiable superficially as the phrases which may not occur in existential sentences, for example * There are most bees in the garden.

23. Portner's study was set up to look for interactions between the type of subject (definite, indefinite, bare plural) and type of predicate (matrix vs. reduced relative, generic vs. nongeneric). Nevertheless, the existence of a garden path in sentences with a definite subject was quite clear: matrix continuation (1652) were faster than generic (1818) or nongeneric (1730) continuations which required a relative clause analysis. With plural subjects, numerically the matrix continuation (1765) took longer than the relative clause continuations (1716, 1722) for the generic and nongeneric respectively. Sentence with indefinite singular subjects were fastest with the generic VP (1597), which was fast compared to either the main clause continuation (1704) or the nongeneric relative clause continuation (1738). One way to look at these data is to assume that a generic subject (A dinosaur) does not like a nongeneric predicate, whatever its syntactic analysis.

24. Pearlmutter and MacDonald (1995) report that a third of their subjects do show longer times for ambiguous main clause sentences than for unambiguous ones, suggesting that this shows the existence of a garden path in sentence with main clause continuations. Also, as discussed below at the end of 7.5, Crain et al. (1996) do include main clause continuations in a study of reduced relative clauses and still find results supporting their theory and different from those of Clifton and Frazier (in progress). We are currently investigating the sources of these differences.

25. Throughout I am ignoring examples (e.g. Feshmen) where a lexical item supplies its own impl icit contrast set.

20. The specific version of Diesing's Mapping Hypothesis that I adopt is summarized in (i).

NOTES 167

(i) VP external at LF: VP internal at LF:

presuppositional interpretations existential interpretations

quantificational interpretations

I assume that the YP is the "Nuclear Scope", at least it is where asserted information is expected to appear. Perceivers seem to expect noncontrastively focused information to appear in the YP. However, I do not assume that only asserted information can appear in the YP.

27. In Runner's theory, there is no expletive replacement at LF. (All forms of A-movement are prohibited at LF.) Therefore, A dog in (2a) must remain in YP at LF.

28. It is unclear whether resistance to lowering the subject in (6a) is a result of the need to lower over a clause boundary, or a result of the availabi1ity of an alternative form (6b), where the subject already appears in the lower position at s-structure.

29. Reconstruction examples are interesting precisely because they allow distinct aspects of interpretation to be teased apart. The examples in (12) indicate that each aspect of interpretation is preferentially accomplished as high in the already computed structure as is grammatically permissible. The scope of the wh-phrase is determined in the highest (s-structure) position. Binding of the reflexive requires lowering at least to a position where a c-commanding antecedent is available (i.e., the specifier of the embedded CP).

Thematic interpretation requires further lowering to a theta-position within the lower clause. If the grammar permitted the reflexive to be bound in the highest (scope determining) position of the wh-phrase, then ML would predict that the reflexive would preferentially be bound in that position. In short, on the theory advocated here, a syntactic chain is not interpreted all at once. Different aspects of interpretation may be separated, each occurring as high in the already computed surface structure as the grammar permits.

30. (13a) contains the focus particle only. The role of only in such examples is not entirely clear (Rooth, 1985, 1992). It seems to magnify and clarify perceivers intui tions about focus. If only is deleted, the same narrow focus preference seems to be present, though the contrast between different continuations (e.g., (13b) VS. (l3b')) is less sharp.

31. This account suggests that projection of F-marking is defined at deep structure, or more likely LF.

32. In order to "sprout" an antecedent for a wh-phrase with an implicit argument antecedent (see Chung, Ladusaw & McCloskey, 1995), presumably the processor must check that the 'antecedent' verb (typed in (30» may take an argument of the syntactic category of the wh-phrase. But, assigning the most plausible thematic role to the wh-phrase will presumably be accomplished by the thematic module as usual.

168 NOTES

33. A complete detailed account of all interpretive domains goes beyond the scope of the present work. In the case of speech, intonational phrases seem to play th is role, as argued by Schafer (1997), see section 3.6. Without a prosodically structured input, thematic processing domains (Frazier & Clifton, 1996) may serve as interpretive domains, as argued in section 5.6.

INDEX

A Adjective interpretation, 43 Ambiguous sentences, interpretation of,

19-22 Anaphors, 16-25

NP anaphora, 18-25 VP anaphora, 16-18

Antecedents, unmoved, 53

B Brain activity, during sentence

comprehension, 5

C Categories, language interpretation

studies, 2 Chain interpretation, division of labor in.

133-134 Chunking hypothesis, 84 Collective/distributive interpretations, 48 Complexity, derivational theory, 55 Composite dependencies, 53-55 Conjoined subjects, 47 Constraint, topic, 79 Constraint-based view, language

processing, 3 Covert restrictor clauses, identification of,

109-111 Cross-modal priming, 5

D Dependencies, composite, 53- 55 Determiner phrases

interpretation of, 117-137 focus, 125-127 indefinite, interpretation of,

120-122 lowering of, 126-129 mapping hypothesis, 118

169

Minimal Lowering principle, 120-137

multiple quantifiers, quantifier scope, 121-124

reconstruction, 124 processing of, 41

Development, linguistic semantics, 1-2

Disconfirmability. minimal, 69-73 Discourse

assumptions, 27-32 topic, 82-88 Discourse dependent interpretation,

13-33 Distinct meaning, word with, multiple

sense, word with, distinguishing, 37 Distinguishing process, multiple sense,

distinct meaning, words with, 37 Distributive interpretation, 48 Division of labor, in chain interpretation,

l35-136

E Extended Specifier principle, 88-95, 99

F Focus, 61- 76

determiner phrases, 125-127 identifying focus, 65-69 minimal disconfirmability, 69-73 morpheme, focus marked by, 62 principle of Parsimony, 70, 73 projection, 63 sluicing, 74-75

Functional projections, theory from, 117

G Grammatically determined interpretation,

in psycholinguistics, use of, overview, 2-3

170 INDEX

H Head Primacy principle, 42-43, 140 Higher level constituents, meanings of,

eye movement study, 47-48 Highest Specifier principle, 89, 100-101,

142 History, of psycho linguistics, 1-2

I Identifying focus, 65-69 Idiom processing, 40 Immediacy, in sentence interpretation,

35-59 Immediate Partial Interpretation principle,

39, 57 Implicit arguments, 49-53 Indefinite determiner phrases,

interpretation of, 120-121 Intersective adjectives, 43

L Labor, division of, in chain interpretation,

135-136 Language interpretation, studies of,

categories, 2 Language processor, architecture of, 3-5 Language, complexity of, 3 Linguistic record of discourse, 85-88 Linguistic semantics, development of, 1-2 Lowering of determiner phrases, 126-129

M Magic merger view, language processing,

3 Makes-sense judgment tasks, 50 Mapping hypothesis, 107

determiner phrases and, 118 Matrix antecedents, 28 Mental models, 13-16 Metaphoric interpretation, 21 Minimal disconfirmability, 69-73 Minimal Lowering principle, 119-137 Minimal semantic commitment, 39 Modular processing, system of, overview,

5 Morpheme, focus marked by, 62 Multiple quantifiers, quantifier scope and,

121-124

Multiple sense, word with, distinct meaning, word with, distinguishing, 37

N NP anaphora, 18-25 Nuclear scope, 107-109

o Operator, 107-109 Overt restrictor clauses, identification of,

111-114

P Phrase-internal semantic commitment, 42 Phrases, interpreting, 41-46 Predication, 47-49 Preferences, with interpretation selection,

117-137 Principle of Parsimony, 25-27, 70, 73 Principle of Partial Interpretation, 38,

57-59 Principle of Relevance, 44 Problems, in sentence interpretation, 6-10 Projection

functional, theory from, 117 offocus, beyond object, 125-126

Proportional quantifiers, 31 Psycholinguistics, history of, 1-2 Psychology of language. See

Psycholinguistics

Q Quantified antecedents, 28 Quantifier, 27-32

scope preferences, 31

R Relational nouns, 41 Relevance

identification of, 104 principle of, 44

Restrictor, 107-109 clause, identification of, 109-113

S Scopally ambiguous sentences,

interpretation of, 121-124

Scope, discourse assumptions, 27-32 Selection, of interpretation, preferences

with, 117-137 Semantics, linguistic, development of,

1-2 Sentence interpretation, problems in,

6-10 Sentence topic, 77-82 Sentence, discourse processing, interplay,

104-106 Sentence-internal interpretation, 35-59

"wrap-up" effects, 55-57 adjective interpretation, 43 collective/distributive interpretations,

48 composite dependencies. 53-55 conjoined subjects, 47 derivational theory of complexity, 55 determiner phrases, processing of, 41 Head Primacy principle, 42-43 higher level constituents, meanings of,

47-48 idiom processing, 40 Immediate Partial Interpretation

principle, 38, 57 implicit arguments, 49-53 interpreting words, 37-41 minimal semantic commitment, 41 partial interpretation, 57-59 phrases, interpreting, 41-46 predication, 47-49 principle of Partial Interpretation,

57-59 principle of Relevance, 44 relational nouns, 41 underspecification, 40 unexpressed arguments. See Implicit

arguments unmoved antecedents, 53 words, interpreting, 37-41

Sluicing, 74-75 Subject preference, 95-98 Subsective interpretations, 44

INDEX 171

Syntactic analysis, in structural identification, overview, 3-4

System of modular processing, overview, 5

T Telescoping, 87 Topic, 77-102

chunking hypothesis, 84 constraint, 79 discourse topic, 82-88 Extended Specifier principle, 88-95,

99 Highest Specifier principle, 87, 99 interpretive domains, 98-10 1 linguistic record of discourse, 85-88 sentence topic, 77-82 subject preference, 95-98 telescoping, 87

Tripartite structure, 103-115

U

covert restrictor clauses, identification of,109-111

mapping hypothesis, 107 nuclear scope, 107-109 operator, 107-109 overt restrictor clauses, identification

of, 111-113 relation to syntax, 108 restrictor, 105-107 clause, identification of, 109-113 sentence, discourse processing,

interplay, 104-106

Underspecification, 40 Unmoved antecedents, 53

V Vagueness, 6-8 VP anaphora, 16-18

W Wrap-up effects, 55-57

STUDIES IN THEORETICAL PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

1. L. Solan: Pronominal Reference. Child Language and the Theory of Grammar. 1983 ISBN 90-277-1495-9

2. B. Lust (ed.): Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora. Volume I: Defining the Constraints. 1986 ISBN 90-277-2121-1; Pb 90-277-2122-X

3. N. M. Hyams: Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. 1986 ISBN 90-277-2218-8; Pb 90-277-2219-6

4. T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.): Parameter Setting. 1987 ISBN 90-277-2315-X; Pb 90-277-2316-8

5. S. Flynn: A Parameter-Setting Model ofL2 Acquisition. Experimental Studies in Anaphora. 1987 ISBN 90-277-2374-5; Pb 90-277-2375-3

6. B. Lust (ed.): Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora. Volume II: Applying the Constraints. 1987 ISBN 1-55608-022-0; Pb 1-55608-023-9

7. G. N. Carlson and M. K. Tanenhaus (eds.): Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. 1989 ISBN 1-55608-074-3; Pb 1-55608-075-1

8. S. Flynn and W. O'Neil (eds.): Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. 1988 ISBN 1-55608-084-0; Pb 1-55608-085-9

9. R. J. Matthews and W. Demopoulos (eds.): Learnability and Linguistic Theory. 1989 ISBN 0-7923-0247-8; Pb 0-7923-05~8-2

10. L. Frazier and J. de Villiers (eds.): Language Processing and Language Acquisi-tion. 1990 ISBN 0-7923-0659-7; Pb 0-7923-0660-0

11. J .A. Padilla: On the Definition of Binding Domains in Spanish. Evidence from Child Language. 1990 ISBN 0-7923-0744-5

12. M. de Vincenzi: Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. The Minimal Chain Principle. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1274-0; Pb 0-7923-1275-9

13. D.C. Lillo-Martin: Universal Grammar and American Sign Language. Setting the Null Argument Parameters. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1419-0

14. A.E. Pierce: Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory. A Comparative Analy­sis of French and English Child Grammars. 1992

ISBN 0-7923-1553-7

15. H. Goodluck and M. Rochemont (eds.): Island Constraints. Theory, Acquisition and Processing. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1689-4

16. J.M. Meisel (ed.): The Acquisition of Verb Placement. Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1906-0

17. E.C. Klein: Toward Second Language Acquisition. A Study of Null-Prep. 1993 ISBN 0-7923-2463-3

STUDIES IN THEORETICAL PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

18. J.L. Packard: A Linguistic Investigation of Aphasic Chinese Speech. 1993 ISBN 0-7923-2466-8

19. J. Archibald: Language Learnability and L2 Phonology: The Acquisition of Metrical Parameters. 1993 ISBN 0-7923-2486-2

20. M.W. Crocker: Computational Psycholinguistics. An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Language. 1996 ISBN 0-7923-3802-2; Pb 0-7923-3806-5

21. J.D. Fodor and F. Ferreira (eds.): Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. 1998 ISBN 0-7923-5099-5

22. L. Frazier: On Sentence Interpretation. 1999 ISBN 0-7923-5508-3

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS - DORDRECHT ( BOSTON I LONDON