Transcript phillipsparker2011x - UMD Linguistics

The Psycholinguistics of Ellipsis
Colin Phillips & Dan Parker
Department of Linguistics
Neuroscience & Cognitive Science Program
University of Maryland
languagescience.umd.edu
Overview
• Grammatical alternatives
• Experimental investigations of ellipsis: 3 leading themes
• Spoiler: these themes don’t resolve today’s debate
• Theme #1: mismatching antecedents
• Interlude: theories and experiments on wh-movement and anaphora
• Theme #2: accessing information about antecedents
• Theme #3: does size matter (or distance)?
Slides available at http://www.ling.umd.edu/colin, under downloadable papers
Alternatives
A. Nature of antecedent
semantic/
discourse
syntactic
(roughly)
Many!
B. Content
of ellipsis site
Dalrymple et al. 1991
Hardt 1993, etc.
detailed
structure
pointer/
anaphor
C.Sag
Derivational
status
1976, Williams
1977, of
structure
at ellipsis
site
Fiengo & May
1994, etc.
only pre
spell-out
Baltin
only post throughout
spell-out
Li
Merchant
Experiments on Ellipsis: Three Themes
1.
Mismatching antecedents
What to make of mismatches between antecedent and ellipsis site
e.g., Seeing the comet was nearly impossible, but John did __.
2.
Accessing information about antecedents
3.
Does size (or distance) matter?
Alternatives
A. Nature of antecedent
semantic/
Consistent judgments/RTs
discourse
Interesting stories
Early days in testing what’s
inside/outside grammar
Dalrymple et al. 1991
syntactic
(roughly)
B. Content of ellipsis site
Hardt 1993, etc.
detailed
structure
Mismatch Studies
Mostly acceptability ratings
Exploring grammatical status
of mismatches
pointer/
anaphor
C. Derivational status of
structure at ellipsis site
e.g., Arregui, Clifton, Frazier, &
only pre
Moulton, 2006; Kim, Kobele,
spell-out
Runner, & Hale, 2010
Baltin
only post throughout
spell-out
Li
Merchant
Experiments on Ellipsis: Three Themes
1.
Mismatching antecedents
What to make of mismatches between antecedent and ellipsis site
e.g., Seeing the comet was nearly impossible, but John did __.
2.
Accessing information about antecedents
Does processing of the ellipsis site involve accessing words from the antecedent
(semantics or phonology)? Are binding relations between elided and non-elided
material rapidly computed?
1.
Does size (or distance) matter?
Alternatives
A. Nature of antecedent
Various interesting effects
Shows rapid access to
antecedent … but does this
show what’s in ellipsis site?
semantic/
discourse
syntactic
(roughly)
B. Content of ellipsis site
Dalrymple et al. 1991
Hardt 1993, etc.
Accessing Antec. Features
Cross-modal lexical decision
Visual world eye-tracking
Self-paced reading, etc.
e.g., Shapiro & Hestvik 1995;
only pre
Snider & Runner 2010;
Yoshida, Dickey, & Sturt, 2011; spell-out
Kaan, Wijnen, & Swaab, 2004
Baltin
detailed
structure
pointer/
anaphor
C. Derivational status of
structure at ellipsis site
only post throughout
spell-out
Li
Merchant
Experiments on Ellipsis: Three Themes
1.
Mismatching antecedents
What to make of mismatches between antecedent and ellipsis site
e.g., Seeing the comet was nearly impossible, but John did __.
2.
Accessing information about antecedents
Does processing of the ellipsis site involve accessing words from the antecedent
(semantics or phonology)? Are binding relations between elided and non-elided
material rapidly computed?
1.
Does size (or distance) matter?
Does resolution of ellipsis become slower/harder for larger/distant antecedents?
Alternatives
A. Nature of antecedent
A number of studies, and
semantic/
emerging consensus that size
discourse
does not matter (different
morals drawn) … but are the
Dalrymple et al. 1991
finings conclusive?
syntactic
(roughly)
B. Content of ellipsis site
Hardt 1993, etc.
detailed
structure
Size/Distance Studies
“Got it” semantic judgments
Self-paced reading
Speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT)
e.g., Murphy 1985; Frazier &
Clifton 2001; Martin &
McElree 2008
pointer/
anaphor
C. Derivational status of
structure at ellipsis site
only pre
spell-out
Baltin
only post throughout
spell-out
Li
Merchant
Alternatives
A. Nature of antecedent
semantic/
discourse
syntactic
(roughly)
B. Content of ellipsis site
Dalrymple et al. 1991
Hardt 1993, etc.
detailed
structure
pointer/
anaphor
C. Derivational status of
structure at ellipsis site
only pre
spell-out
Baltin
only post throughout
spell-out
Li
Merchant
They agree: detailed structural representation in ellipsis site
They disagree: derivational “timing”
They don’t tell us: how their derivations relate to real-time mechanisms
So we’ll make something up for them …
A. Very little relation (cf. Townsend & Bever, 2001)  no predictions
B. Real-time mechanism incrementally builds a representation that includes
sound (PF), meaning (LF), plus mediating structure  identical predictions
Any evidence of building structure at ellipsis site fits all 3 proposals
C. Derivational status of
Moral
structure at ellipsis site
For psycholinguists to help
with your grammatical
disputes, it helps to come only pre
only post throughout
spell-out
clean about your mentalistic
spell-out
commitments
Baltin
Li
Merchant
(for menu of options, cf.
Phillips & Lewis 2010)
Theme #1: Mismatches
“This information could have been released by Gorbachev, but he chose not to ___.”
release this information
attributed to Daniel Schorr, NPR
cited in Hardt 1993
Theme #1: Mismatches
• ‘Acceptability cline’ across various forms of antecedent-ellipsis mismatches
(Arregui, Clifton, Frazier, & Moulton 2006; Kim, Kobele, Runner, & Hale 2010)
• Various judgment studies fine-tune generalizations
Appeal to parser properties to account for mismatches
• Active-Passive > Passive-Active
a. The advisor praised the student, and the old school-master was.
b. The student was praised by the old school-master, and the
advisor did too.
Verbal Gerunds > Nominal Gerunds
a. Singing the arias tomorrow night will be difficult, but Maria will.
b. Tomorrow night’s singing of the arias will be difficult, but Maria will.
Category N-VP > Adj-VP
a. The criticism of Roy was harsh, but Kate didn’t.
b. The report was critical of Roy, but Kate didn’t.
Theme #1: Mismatches
Arregui, Clifton, Frazier, & Moulton 2006
• VPE requires syntactic identity
… standard notion
• VPE mismatches are ungrammatical
• Partial acceptability reflects repair
Kim, Kobele, Runner, & Hale 2010
• VPE requires syntactic identity
… in a novel gram. analysis
• VPE mismatches are grammatical
• Partial acceptability reflects search
• VP-repair (‘recycling’)
– Transform mismatching antecedent
– Rules guide repair process
• Search heuristics
– Search for matching antecedent
– Constraints guide search for
matching antecedent
– Cline reflects amount of search
work
– Cline reflects amount of repair work
Interlude
Experimental findings in other
theoretically contentious domains
Competing accounts of ellipsis
He ate something but I don’t know what he ate __.
Null structure at foot of dep.
All of today’s speakers
He ate something but I don’t know what.
No/minimal null structure
Anaphor/‘pointer’ account
Competing accounts of wh-dependencies
What do Englishmen cook gap/trace/copy
What do Englishmen cook
Null structure at foot of dep.
Transformational Grammar
(--> Projection Principle)
Direct Association
HPSG/GPSG
Categorial Grammar
Dependency Grammar
etc.
Competing accounts of anaphora
John thinks that Mary hates him John.
John thinks that Mary hates him.
Pronominalization (Postal)
Movement theory of
control/reflexives (Hornstein
et al.)
Standard view
Anaphor points to content
elsewhere in syntax/discourse
Experiments as Theory Arbitrators
Many of the themes raised in experiments on ellipsis have been
investigated in experiments on wh-dependencies and anaphora.
Wh-dependencies: much discussion of whether expt. findings
are decisive regarding gaps/traces vs. direct association.
Conclusion: the timing evidence probably isn’t decisive (yet).
Gibson & Hickok 1993; Phillips & Wagers 2007; Kempen, LSA 2011
So it’s interesting to see parallel arguments being presented as
theoretically decisive in the case of ellipsis.
Anaphora: nobody thinks they’re testing pronominalization etc.
Cross-modal Priming
Semantic Associate Priming
Swinney, Ford, Frauenfelder, & Bresnan 1988; Nicol
& Swinney 1989; McKoon, Ratcliff & Ward 1994;
Nicol, Fodor, & Swinney 1994
Rhyme Priming
Tanenhaus, Carlson, & Seidenberg 1985
The policeman saw the boy that the crowd at the party accused __ of the crime.
girl
group
The man was surprised at which beer/wine the judges awarded the first prize to __.
fear
Eye-fixations in visual world
1. eat
Q: Can you tell me…
Wh: … what Emily was eating the cake with ___ ?
YN: … if Emily was eating the cake with the fork?
2. wash
Fixations on picture of cake
W
H
YN
400 ms
Verb Onset
Omaki, Trock, Wagers, Lidz & Phillips, 2009
Pronouns & Lexical Properties
• In pronoun generation (production) phonological properties of the
antecedent are accessed
(Schmitt, Meyer, & Levelt 1999)
• In pronoun comprehension, effects of lexical frequency of the antecedent
(van Gompel & Majid 2004; Lago, Chow, & Phillips in prep.)
• These effects show how antecedents are accessed
Few would consider them as evidence for Postal-style pronominalization
Point of the Interlude …
• In wh-dependencies and anaphora, many interesting experiments show
how antecedent information is accessed, and when.
This is all very useful for building an account of real-time computation.
• But evidence on access to antecedent properties does not show whether
there’s unpronounced structure at the foot of the dependency
For any argument for full structure at an ellipsis site, ask this question:
Would the same argument convince us of the need for (i) traces/gaps for
wh-movement, or (ii) a transformational analysis of anaphora?
Theme #2
Accessing Antecedents
Accessing Words in Antecedent
Cross-modal lexical decision shows semantic priming of noun inside antecedent
(Shapiro, Hestvik, Lesan, & Garcia, 2003)
The old professor [VP loved the ocean], and the teenager […] did __ too …
PACIFIC
TEACHER
 Syntactically-defined antecedent accessed at ellipsis site.
Accessing Antecedent Properties
Experiment 1: semantic associates
lock
The security guard opened the lock,
and the night manager did too.
These arguments for syntactic
structure in ellipsis parallel earlier
findings on wh-dependencies and
pronoun processing.
key
Experiment 2: phonological associates
The customer dropped the lock,
and the manager did too.
“Only if syntactic structure is present
in ellipsis site should phonological
information be reactivated.”
log
lock
Snider & Runner, AMLaP 2010 (& Sat. 10:30am)
Fast Use of Syntactic Constraints
• Rapid building of binding relations in sluicing (Yoshida, Dickey, & Sturt 2011)
Jane’s {grandfather|grandmother} told some stories at the family reunion,
but we couldn’t remember which story about himself … [sentence continues]
Gender mismatch effect at reflexive when sluicing is a viable option
(No corresponding effect at reflexive when pied-piped wh-PP blocks sluicing)
• Rapid sensitivity to islands in sluicing vs. sprouting (Yoshida et al. 2010)
Nick’s father was startled …
because he smoked secretly in the garden
because he smoked something in the garden
… but it wasn’t clear what …
Evidence of immediate sensitivity to islands for sprouting vs. sluicing
• Clever contrasts – but they motivate structure at ellipsis site to the same
extent that connectivity effects in wh-movement motivate traces.
Fast resolution of gapping
• ERPs suggest rapid detection of implausibility in gapped sentences (Kaan,
Wijnen, & Swaab 2004)
Ron took the planks for the bookcase, and Bill __ the hammer …
Ron sanded the planks for the bookcase, and Bill __ the hammer …
N400 to implausible verb-noun
combination
“the sentence processor […]
reconstructs the verb
information at the earliest
possible occasion” (p. 584)
Any mechanism that gets the
meaning can capture this.
Theme #3: Does size matter?
• “The canonical interpretation of a literal copy mechanism is that copying
more information should take more time. One could simply assert that
‘copying’ does not require time, but we suggest that in that case, the
notion ‘copy’ is no longer explanatory.” (Martin & McElree 2008, p. 894)
• A number of studies have tested whether size/complexity affects the time
needed for ellipsis resolution.
Mixed results.
But most currently assume that the evidence shows no size cost.
• Size effect
≠
No size effect =
copy mechanism
no copy mechanism
Reason: merely accessing a complex antecedent could take a while
Yes – size matters!
• Shorter antecedents yield shorter response times in an end-of-sentence “got
it” task (Murphy 1985)
Short Antecedent: Jimmy swept the tile floor behind the chair
Long Antecedent : Jimmy swept the tile floor behind the chair
free of hair and cigarettes.
Ellipsis: Later, his uncle did too.
long antecedent: 244ms slower RTs
• Size effect only holds for nearby antecedents. It disappears when distance
between antecedent and ellipsis is increased by adding an intervening
sentence.
Evidence criticized by Tanenhaus & Carlson (1990) based on poss. confounds
No – it doesn’t!
• Widely cited lack of antecedent size effects in VPE (Frazier & Clifton 2000,
2001)
Short Antecedent: Sarah left her boyfriend last May.
Long Antecedent : Sarah got up the courage to leave her boyfriend last May.
Ellipsis: Tina did too.
• F&C conclude cost free copying … what Martin & McElree call non-explanatory
• Although F&C’s paper reports multiple studies, this is the only specific test of
the antecedent size effect.
Measure: reading time to final region in self-paced reading – not best practice.
Small study: half the size of a regular study ( reduced power), intermittent
comprehension questions.
No effect? Numerical slowdown in some comparisons (50ms), not reliable.
No – it doesn’t!
Version 2 – Martin & McElree 2008
Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff (SAT)
Memory Access
SAT: Possible Outcomes
Asymptotic difference
Reflects the strength of the
representation or the likelihood of
completing a parse/process.
Rate/intercept difference
Reflects the speed of processing:
how quickly information accumulates
continuously, or the differences in an
underlying discrete finishing time
distribution.
VP-complexity manipulation (Expt 3)
The history professor understood Roman mythology …
The history professor understood Rome’s swift and brutal destruction of Carthage …
… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overworked students […] did not.
… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overly worn books […] did not
no effect of complexity
on dynamics or asymptote
Antecedent distance effect (Expt 1)
distance affects asymptote,
but not dynamics
Martin & McElree 2008
VP-complexity manipulation (Expt 3)
The history professor understood Roman mythology …
The history professor understood Rome’s swift and brutal destruction of Carthage …
… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overworked students […] did not.
… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overly worn books […] did not
no effect of complexity
on dynamics or asymptote
But …
The time course profile measures the sensicality judgment task.
Task requires only matching of subject with antecedent verb. Added complexity isn’t relevant.
Needed: a version of this study where entire VP is task relevant.
Martin & McElree 2008
Cautionary Note from Wh-studies
• Larger antecedents sometimes correspond to shorter reading times at foot of
wh-dependency (Hofmeister 2007)
What
did the reporter that Scooter avoided discuss …
Which poll
did the reporter that Scooter avoided discuss …
Which political poll did the reporter that Scooter avoided discuss …
It was a communist
who the members of the club banned …
It was an alleged communist
who the members of the club banned …
It was an alleged Venezuelan communist who the members of the club banned
…
• Hofmeister attributes effects to elaboration
or depth of encoding in memory.
Moral: bigger antecedents aren’t all harder
Conclusions
1. Psycholinguists are helping
with the overgeneration
problem that syntactic
theories of ellipsis face.
2. Many interesting findings
about rapid access to
information in ellipsis
resolution.
But this is different than
showing structure in the
ellipsis site.
3. No experiments yet resolve
the differences between
today’s speakers.
A linking hypothesis from
syntactic derivations to realtime computations would
be a good start.
A. Nature of antecedent
semantic/
discourse
syntactic
(roughly)
B. Content of ellipsis site
Dalrymple et al. 1991
Hardt 1993, etc.
detailed
structure
pointer/
anaphor
C. Derivational status of
structure at ellipsis site
only pre
spell-out
Baltin
only post throughout
spell-out
Li
Merchant
Thanks to …
• NSF DGE-0801465 IGERT training program in language science
NSF BCS-0948554, Structure Generation in Language Comprehension
• Masaya Yoshida, Matt Wagers, Roumi Pancheva for filling many holes in
our knowledge
Annotated Bibliography of
Experimental Studies on Ellipsis
Bibliography - Ellipsis
Arregui, A., Clifton Jr., C. L. Frazier & K. Moulton. (2006). Processing elided VPs with
flawed antecedents. Journal of Memory & Language 55:232–246. [Uses acceptability
and self-paced reading studies to measure mismatch effects. Argues for a repair
strategy to create an appropriate antecedent in cases of syntactic mismatch]
Frazier, L. & Clifton Jr., C. (1998). Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and
Cognitive Processes 13: 499-520. [Investigates a variety of factors that affect the
processing of sluiced sentences (e.g. focus, overt/covert antecedents) using self-paced
reading and eye-tracking measures.]
Frazier, L., & Clifton Jr., C. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy alpha. Syntax:
4(1), 1–22.
[Reports a self-paced reading study to measure antecedent size effects.
Evidence for the absence of size effects, and argues for a “Cost-free” copy mechanism.
That study is reported in (somewhat) more detail in Frazier et al. 2000, J. Psycholing.
Res.]
Frazier, L. & Clifton Jr., C. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis.
Syntax: 8(1), 121–174. [Acceptability and self-paced reading studies testing for
structure at ellipsis site. Argues for structure at the ellipsis site. See also Frazier &
Clifton (2006)]
Bibliography - Ellipsis
Kaan, E., Wijnen, F., & Swaab, T. Y. (2004). Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for
immediate processing of “missing” verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain and
Language: 89(3), 584–592. [ERP study investigating the time-course of gapping
resolution. N400 effects suggest rapid integration of the elided verb at the gap site.]
Gregory, H. and Lappin, S. (1997). A computational model of ellipsis resolution. In
Geert-Jan Kruijff, Glyn V. Morrill, and Richard T. Oehrle, editors, Formal Grammar:
proceedings of the conference. [Offers an implemented algorithm to capture
syntactic reconstruction in ellipsis]
Kim, C., Kobele, G., Runner, J. & Hale, J. (to appear) The Acceptability Cline in VP
Ellipsis. Syntax. [Uses magnitude estimation acceptability judgments to measure
syntactic mismatch effects. Outlines a computational model in which mismatching VPE
effects result from violating parsing heuristics]
Kim, C. & Runner, J. (in press). Discourse parallelism and VP ellipsis. UMass Occasional
Papers in Linguistics: Ellipsis. [Several magnitude estimation studies investigating
mismatch effects in VPE]
Bibliography - Ellipsis
Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism
underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language:
58, 879–906. [Several speed-accuracy tradeoff experiments investigating the
mechanisms of antecedent access and retrieval. Argues for a pointer mechanism]
Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2009). Memory operations that support language
comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition: 35, 1231-1239. [Speed-accuracy tradeoff
experiment investigating the mechanisms of retrieval. Measures the effects of
proactive and retroactive interference using ellipsis constructions]
Murphy, G. (1985). Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and
Language: 24:290–303. [Uses a “Got It” test of comprehension to measure size and
distance effects. Shows that size matters for nearby antecedents, but not distant
antecedents]
Poirier, J., Wolfinger, K., Spellman, L. & Shapiro, L. (2010). The Real-Time Processing of
Sluiced Sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 39:411–427. [Cross-modal
lexical decision study investigating antecedent access in sluicing. Shows that the
antecedent object NP is accessed, but not the subject NP]
Bibliography - Ellipsis
Shapiro, L. P., Hestvik, A., Lesan, L., & Garcia, A. R. (2003). Charting the time-course of
VP-ellipsis sentence comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural
analysis. Journal of Memory and Language: 49(1), 1–19. [Cross-modal lexical
decision study investigating antecedent access in VPE. Shows that the syntactic VP
antecedent is accessed, and argues for syntactic reconstruction in ellipsis. See also
Shapiro & Hestvik (1995)]
Snider, N. & Runner, J. (2010). "Structural Parallelism Aids Ellipsis and Anaphor
Resolution: Evidence from Eye Movements to Semantic and Phonological Neighbors,"
16th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing,
York, UK. [Slides retrieved from Snider’s home page. Examines antecedent retrieval
using visual world eye-tracking. Argues that semantic and phonological neighbors are
activated as a consequence of antecedent retrieval in VPE. Argues for structure at
ellipsis site]
Bibliography - Ellipsis
Streb, J., E. Hennighausen. and Rosler, F. (2004). Different anaphoric expressions are
investigated by event-related brain potentials, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research:
33(3), 175-201.
[ERP study investigating distance effects. Shows that
comprehension times increase with distance to the antecedent. Also, a LAN-like effect
suggests that ellipsis is resolved during syntactic parsing steps]
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Comprehension of deep and surface verb
phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(4), 257–280. [Uses sensicality
judgments to investigate the role of syntactic parallelism in the comprehension of deep
and surface anaphors. Surface anaphors make sense more often in syntactically
parallel contexts than in non-parallel contexts. Parallelism does not affect judgments of
deep anaphors]
Bibliography - Ellipsis
Masaya Yoshida, Michael Walsh Dickey & Patrick Sturt, (to appear, 2010). Predictive
Processing of Syntactic Structure: Sluicing and Ellipsis in Real-Time Sentence
Processing. Language and Cognitive Processes. [Uses self-paced reading measures to
investigate the prediction of syntactic structure in potentially sluiced constructions.
Argues that parser chooses sluicing over other possible structures when possible.
Argues for syntactic structure at the ellipsis site]
Masaya Yoshida, Jiyeon Lee, Isaac Rottman and Michael Dickey. (to appear). Islands
under the predicted structure. In J. Sprouse & N. Hornstein (eds.), edited volume on
syntax and psycholinguistics of islands. [Self-paced reading study investigating the
processing of potential sluicing/sprouting structures. Argues that the parser posits the
structure of ellipsis when an embedded wh-phrase is processed, based on
presence/absence of a reading time cost associated with sprouting.]
Other works cited
Dalrymple, M., Stuart, M., Shieber, S. & Pereira, F. (1991). Ellipsis and higher-order unification.
Linguistics and Philosophy: 14: 399–452.
Gibson, E. & Hickok, G. (1993). Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and
Cognitive Processes: 8(2): 147-161.
Kempen, G. (2011): Nontransformational reinterpretation of the purported psycholinguistic
evidence for grammatical movement operations and movement traces. Presentation at the
85th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Jan 6-9. Pittsburgh, PA.
Hardt, D. (1993). Verb Phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.
Hofmeister, P. (2007). Representational Complexity and Memory Retrieval in Language
Comprehension. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Lago, S., Chow, W. Y., & Phillips, C. (in prep.). Word frequency affects pronouns and antecedents
identically: Distributional evidence. U of Maryland.
McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R., & Ward, G. (1994). Testing theories of language processing: An empirical
investigation of the on-line lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition: 20(5): 1219-1228.
Nicol, J. & Swinney, D.A. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence
comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Special Issue: Sentence Processing: 18:
5-19.
Nicol, J., Fodor, J.D., & Swinney, D. (1994). Using Cross-Modal lexical decision tasks to investigate
sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learninq, Memory, and Cognition:
20(5): 1229-1238.
Other works cited
Omaki, A., Trock, A., Wagers, M., Lidz, J., Phillips, C. (2009). Active gap search in the visual world
with lexical competitors. CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, 22, Davis, CA.
Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating Structure and Time in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics.
In G. Gaskell, ed. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Phillips, C. & Lewis, S. (2010). Derivational Order in Syntax: Evidence and Architectural
Consequences. In C. Chesi, ed. Directions in Derivations. Elsevier.
Schmitt, B. Meyer, A., & Levelt, W.J.M., (1999). Lexical access in the production of pronouns.
Cognition: 69: 313-335.
Swinney, D., Ford, M., Frauenfelder, U., & Bresnah, J. (1988). On the temporal course of gap-filling
and antecedent assignment during sentence comprehension. In B. Grosz, R. Kaplan. M.
Macken. & 1. Sag, eds. Language structure and processing. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Tanenhaus, M.K., Carlson, G. & Seidenberg, M.S. (1985). Do listeners compute linguistic
representations? In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen & A. Zwicky, eds., Natural Language Parsing:
Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Townsend, D. J., and Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and
Rules. MIT Press.
Van Gompel, R.P.G., & Majid, A. (2004). Antecedent frequency effects during the processing of
pronouns. Cognition: 90: 255-264.