Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 27–46 | Cite as

Aligning Grammatical Theories and Language Processing Models

  • Shevaun LewisEmail author
  • Colin Phillips


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


Parsing Grammatical theories Abstraction  Cognitive architecture of language 



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


  1. Aho, A. V., Lam, M. S., Sethi, R., & Ullman, J. D. (2006). Compilers: Principles, techniques, and tools (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax, 12, 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (2000). Case and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 37–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 89–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Bickerton, D. (2003). Symbol and structure: A comprehensive framework for language evolution. In M. H. Christiansen & S. Kirby (Eds.), Language evolution (pp. 77–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bock, J. K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdages, J. S. (1992). Parsing complex NPs in French. In H. Goodluck & M. S. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing (pp. 61–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100, 434–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  16. Chow, W. Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 630.Google Scholar
  17. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clifton, C, Jr., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In M. K. Tanenhaus & G. N. Carlson (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Clifton, C, Jr., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11, 11–39.Google Scholar
  21. Clifton, C, Jr., Kennison, S., & Albrecht, J. (1997). Reading the words her, him, and his: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276–292.Google Scholar
  22. Condry, K., & Spelke, E. (2008). The development of language and abstract concepts: The case of natural number. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cowart, W., & Cairns, H. S. (1987). Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: Some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints. Memory and Cognition, 15, 318–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1987). Sentence matching and overgeneration. Cognition, 26, 123–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. de Villiers, J. G. (2007). The interface of language and theory of mind. Lingua, 117, 1858–1878.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2009). Complements enable representation of the contents of false beliefs: The evolution of a theory of theory of mind. In S. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Language Acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. de Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. E. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief understanding. Cognitive Development, 17, 1037–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dillon, B. W. (2011). Structured access in sentence comprehension. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  30. Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting interference profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the back door. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 145–165). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Attraction in sentence production: The role of syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frank, S. L., Bod, R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 4522–4531.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Freedman, S. E., & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological, and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 183–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1660–1712). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Gibson, E., & Hickok, G. (1993). Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gimenes, M., Rigalleau, F., & Gaonach, D. (2009). When a missing verb makes a French sentence more acceptable. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 440–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). “Some”, and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 42–55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Grune, D., & Jacobs, C. J. H. (2008). Parsing techniques: A practical guide. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29, 145–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hermer, L., & Spelke, E. (1996). Modularity and development: The case of spatial reorientation. Cognition, 61, 195–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hermer-Vazquez, L., Moffet, A., & Munkholm, P. (2001). Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: The case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition, 79, 263–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hermer-Vazquez, L., Spelke, E., & Katsnelson, A. S. (1999). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 3–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hussey, E. K., & Novick, J. (2012). The benefits of executive control training and the implications for language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hyde, D. C., Winkler-Rhoades, N., Lee, S. A., Izard, V., Shapiro, K. A., & Spelke, E. S. (2011). Spatial and numerical abilities without a complete natural language. Neuropsychologia, 49, 924–936.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and Tinkering. Science, 196, 1161-1166.Google Scholar
  55. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backward anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2010). Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kempen, G. (2014). Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics, 12, 111–142.Google Scholar
  60. Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., & Sprenger, S. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 345–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kennison, S. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. King, J., Andrews, C., & Wagers, M. (2012). Do reflexives always find a good antecedent for themselves? In Poster at the 25th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  63. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214.Google Scholar
  64. Kush, D. (2013). Respecting relations: Memory access and antecedent retrieval in incremental sentence processing. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  65. Ladusaw, W. (1996). Negation and polarity items. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 321–341). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  66. Lago, M. S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Agreement processes in Spanish comprehension. Ms. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  67. Ledoux, K., Gordon, P. C., Camblin, C. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Coreference and lexical repetition: Mechanisms of discourse integration. Memory and Cognition, 35, 801–815.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lewis, S. (2013). Pragmatic enrichment in language processing and development. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  69. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.Google Scholar
  73. McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 432–460.Google Scholar
  74. Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identifying in ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically-based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Novick, J., Hussey, E. K., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. (2014). Clearing the garden path: Improving sentence processing through executive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 186–217.Google Scholar
  79. Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pablos, L., Ruijgrok, B., Doetjes, J., & Cheng, L. (2012). Processing cataphoric pronouns in Dutch: An ERP study. In Talk at the GLOW workshop on timing in grammar. Potsdam.Google Scholar
  82. Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2011). Early retrieval interference in syntax-guided antecedent search. In Talk at the 24th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  83. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 195–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Phillips, C., & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 11–47.Google Scholar
  86. Phillips, C., & Parker, D. (2013). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.003.
  87. Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. W. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 739–756). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (syntax and semantics, vol. 37) (pp. 153–186). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  89. Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian Indigene group. Science, 306, 499–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pickering, M., Barton, J. S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints, and processing complexity. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 199–224). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  91. Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  94. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sag, I. A., & Fodor, J. D. (1994). Extraction without traces. In R. Aronovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss, & M. Senturia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 365–384). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  96. Sloggett, S. (2013). Case licensing in processing: Evidence from German. In Poster at the 26th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
  97. Spelke, E. S. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind (pp. 277–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Sprouse, J., & Lau, E. F. (2013). Syntax and the brain. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Stabler, E. P. (2013). Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science,. doi: 10.1111/tops.12031.
  100. Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 308–327.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Staub, A. (2010). Reponse time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction. Cognition, 114, 447–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sturt, P. (2007). Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition, 105, 477–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Swaab, T. Y., Camblin, C. C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 715–726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Szabolcsi, A. (2013). Quantification and ACD: What is the evidence from real-time processing evidence for? A response to Hackl et al. (2012). Journal of Semantics. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs025.
  107. Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  108. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Trotzke, A., Bader, M., & Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics, 7, 1–34.Google Scholar
  110. Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wagers, M. W. (2008). The structure of memory meets memory for structure in linguistic cognition. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  112. Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2014). Going the distance: Memory and decision making in active dependency construction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1274–1304.Google Scholar
  114. Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Information structure influences depth of syntactic processing: Event-related potential evidence for the Chomsky Illusion. PLOS One, 7, 1–9.Google Scholar
  115. Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2014). Deconstructing acomparative illusion. Ms. Northwestern University, University of Southern California, and University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  116. Whitney, C. S. (2004). Investigations into the neural basis of structured representations. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  117. Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language, 108, 40–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Yoshida, M., Aoshima, S., & Phillips, C. (2004). Relative clause prediction in Japanese. In Talk at the 17th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. College Park, MD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics, Maryland Language Science CenterUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations