Bock, J. K. (1982) Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information
processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review,
Bock, J. K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy:
Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language,
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical
encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics
(pp. 945-984). San Diego: Academic Press.
Carroll, David W. Psychology of Language. 3rd ed.Pacific Grove:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. 1999. [R,N7,X 184-187,198-201,169-276,
[very limited definition of grammar --
limited to transformational (36)]
"observed differences between children and adults
on cognitive tasks may have more to do with the use of information processing
resources than with qualitative shifts in thinking." (62)
"When working on new syntactic structures, a
demanding task, the child may compensate by attending less to phonological
specification. Perhaps only later, when the syntax comes a little easier,
will the child be able to master both levels simultaneously." (62)
"When words are familiar, we can perceive them
as complete units rather than as sets of letters." (97)
[on first responses to the word chair:]
"... four types of semantic relations predominate (Miller, 1991). First,
there are taxonomic relations. Table is a coordinate term,
is a superordinate term, and rocker is a subordinate of chair.
Second, there are attributive relations, which are terms that identify
attributes of the word. Mostly these are adjectives, such as comfortable,
or white. Third, there are part-whole relations, which are
terms that name a part of something or that name the whole of which something
is a part. Examples here are seat,
cushion, and legs.
Finally, there are functional relations. Words such as sitting,
and rocking indicate what can be done with a chair. (107)
"Daneman and Carpenter (1980), for example, distinguish between the
storage and processing functions of working memory." (163)
[On remembering surface structures of sentences:]
"... Kintsch and Bates (1977), in a study of recall of lecture material,
found that their students often remembered the exact wording of extraneous
comments such as announcements, jokes, and asides. Apparently, we can remember
the exact wording of some material when it is distinctive and easily separable
from the rest of the discourse." (167)
[Fromkin's Model of Speech Production -- the
syntactic structure of a sentence is formulated before the words
are chosen for the syntactic slots ????
"What evidence can be given that the stages hypothesized in Table 8-2
model] are actually independent of one another? Probably the clearest
evidence is that the vast majority of speech errors contain mistakes at
only one level of planning." (198)
[on production of speech:]
"we might be able to implement some plans while we are in the process
of formulating others. This notion, which Kempen and Hoenkamp (1987) call
processing, can be described in the following way. Suppose we characterize
a complete sentence as a series of units. Given this, it is surely the
case that we plan unit x before we articulate unit x. In this sense, our
implementation of linguistic plans is serial. But, at the same time that
we are articulating unit x, we are planning unit x + 1; in this sense,
processing is parallel.
A brief digression: we might reasonably ask
at this point what "units" are -- are they clauses, phrases, words, syllables,
phonemes? The answer is probably all of the above (Foss & Hakes, 1978).
At various times in the course of production we treat all of these as processing
units. The unit of production depends, in part, on the amount of resources
needed for a given portion of the message. An infrequent or difficult word
might command a good share of our resources, whereas an entire routiniized
phrase such as a cliché could be activated as a complete unit. It
is therefore not possible to identify any one unit of language as 'the'
unit of production." (208)
"The Kempen and Hoenkamp (1987) model is also
an example of a lexically driven approach to sentence production. In this
respect it contrasts with a model such as Fromkin's that assumes that the
syntactic structure is laid out in advance and then content words are fitted
into the structure. According to the lexical approach, the production process
may begin with words that are conceptually accessible, which then trigger
the syntactic structure, not the other way around (Bock & Levelt, 1994).
For example, words that are more easily retrieved may be placed early on
in a sentence or constituent (Bock, 1982). The lexical approach is consistent
with the lexical-functional grammar of Bresnan that we discussed in Chapter
2. Moreover, in emphasizing that the lexical level may influence the syntactic
level and not simply vice versa, it is similar in spirit to the spreading
activation view of production (Dell, 1986)." (209)
"A complex sentence is one that expresses more than one proposition.
Passive sentences convey a single idea in linguistically complex
form. Other sentences, such as coordinations, complements, and relative
clauses, express more than one idea. (290-91) [Implies
that a clause equals an "idea."]
"A complement is a noun phrase that includes
a verb." [???
Uses "I want to go home." as an example.]
"Finally, a relative
clause is a wh-clause that modifies a noun. When a wh-clause
modifies the object of a sentence, it is called an object relative clause.
. . . There are also subject relative clauses, such as sentence (25) in
which who was lost modifies the boy:
(24) I did the thing what you
Children's first relative clauses tend to be object
clauses (Limber, 1973). Subject relative clauses may be more difficult
because of processing limitations (Goodluck & Tavakolian, 1982). Notice
that the subject relatives require a speaker to interrupt a clause to modify
the subject, then return to complete the clause. It is likely that such
constructions overload young children's working memory. (291-2)
(25) The boy who was lost was found unharmed.
Dell. G. S. (1985) Positive feedback in hierarchical connectionist
models: Applications to language production, Cognitive Science,
Dell. G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence
production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
Dell. G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production:
Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and
Language, 27, 124-142.
Dell. G. S., Burger, L. K., & Svec, W. R. (1997) Language Production
and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review,
Dell. G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production:
An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 20, 611-629.
Foss, D. J. (1969) Decision processes during sentence comprehension:
Effects of lexical item difficyulty and position upon decision times. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 457-462.
Foss, D. J. (1970). Some effects of ambiguity upon sentence comprehension.
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 699-706.
Foss, D. J., & Hakes, D. T. (1978) Psycholinguistics: An introduction
to the psychology of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Foss, D. J., & Jenkins, C. M. (1973) Some effects of context on
the comprehension of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 12, 577-589.
Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1974) An introduction to language.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances.
Fromkin, V. A. (Ed.) (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence.
The Hague: Mouton.
Fromkin, V. A. (Ed.) (1980) Errors in linguistic performance.
New York: Academic Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1975) The analysis of sentence production. In G. H.
Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and memory: Advances in research
and theory (Vol. 9, pp. 133-177). New York: Academic Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1980). The limits of accommodation. In V.A. Fromkin
(Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance (pp. 263-271). New York:
Garrett, M. F. (1988). Processes in language production. In F.
J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Vol. III.
Language: Psychological and biological aspects (pp. 69-96). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing
in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11, 1-27.
R, X -- a study of 4-year-olds (and 5-year-olds)]
"We conclude that our analysis is compatible with a picture
of acquisition in which the child's competence grammar of relatives is
not qualitatively different from the adult's." (2)
Isakson, Carol S. and Jan H. Spyridakis. (1999) The
influence of semantics and syntax on what readers remember. Technical
Communication. Aug, 1999, 366-381 [ProQuest <firstname.lastname@example.org>]
[This study explores how well four- and five-year-olds
can understand sentences such as:
"The lion kisses the duck that hits the pig." (3)
"The cow kisses the horse that jumps over the fence." (3)
"The boy hits the girl that jumps over the fence." (8)
"The boy is hit by the girl after jumping over the fence." (8)
Although the study is interesting in cognitive
terms (Children understand relative clauses with inanimate objects before
they understand clauses with animate objects.), it does not offer anything
that I can see relative to what grammar should be taught in school.]
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar
for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201-258.
Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences. In T.E. Moore (Ed.),
development and the acquisition of language (pp. 169-185). New York:
"This chapter concerns the development of complex sentences
in a number of English-speaking children before their third birthday."
MacKay, D. G. (1978) Derivational rules and the internal lexicon. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 61-71.
[Focusses on whether or not constructions appear
in children's speech -- does not consider whether the children understand
"I will consider any sentence with more than one verb (V) as complex;
auxiliaries and possessives are perhaps arbitrarily excluded." (171)
[Like so much of the research into pre-school linguistic development, this
article is deceptive. "I want Bill to go" is defined as a complex sentence.
Unfortunately, too many people read the conclusions of these studies and
then agree that students have entirely mastered grammar before they enter
school. Therefore there is no need to teach it in school. As Limber states:
Leopold (1949b), for example, in his classic study, remarks
about his daughter of 2 years, 11 months (2;11) that ". . . with the mastery
of complex sentences, the linguistic development has reached the last stage.
In the future only refinements can be expected. In general, it is astonishing
how little her language differs from recognized usage [Vol 4, p. 37]."
What I find astonishing is that many linguists, including
some in ATEG, claim that we have to read
this stuff before we can develop instructional material on grammar for
students in K - college.
MacKay, D. G. (1982). The problem of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy
trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483-506.
MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action:
A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer.
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language
production. In A. w. Ellis (ed.), Progress in the psychology of language
(Vol. 1, pp. 143-186). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.