Bibliography: Cross-linguistic work on sentence production

Elisabeth Norcliffe and I are currently working on a short summary paper on cross-linguistic psycholinguistic work on sentence production (experiments and corpus studies w/ a sufficiently large sample and quantitative investigation). We would like to focus this effort on research on:

• accessibility effects on word order, voice, and other morphosyntactic variations
• radical vs moderate incrementality during sentence formulation
• syntactic persistence (within and across languages)
• agreement
• disfluencies (but not speech errors)

If you know of work in any of these areas that we should consider, we would appreciate your feedback. Just leave a comment at the bottom of this page (it’s a moderated forum, so it will not appear immediately, but usually it does not take us longer than a day to accept your posts). You can also send an email to Florian. Other topics within sentence production would also be of interest. The selection of references for English (below) mostly serves to exemplify the type of reference we are looking for and is, of course, absolutely incomplete ;). We are interested in references to work on languages other than English and we are especially interested in work on understudied languages.

The list of references we have so far is the result of feedback from many folks on the CUNY list (thanks to all of you). I will update this list periodically.

The references below are available in form of an EndNote library at http://www.hlp.rochester.edu/resources/bibs/, starting 08/26/08. [last updated 08/23/08]

• English: (Arnold, Wasow, Losongco, & Ginstrom, 2000; Bates & Devescovi, 1989; Birner, 1994; Bock, 1982, 1986, 1987; Bock et al., 2006; Bock, Eberhard, Cutting, Meyer, & Schriefers, 2001; Bock & Irwin, 1980; Bock & Warren, 1985; Bresnan, Cueni, Nikitina, & Baayen, 2007; Bresnan, Dingare, & Manning, 2001; Bresnan & Hay, 2007; Brown-Schmidt & Konopka, in press; Byrne & Davidson, 1985; Chang, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2008; Clark & Wasow, 1998; F. Ferreira, 1994; F. Ferreira & Henderson, 1998; V. S. Ferreira, 1996, 2003; Gennari, Mirkovic, & MacDonald, 2005; Gleitman, January, Nappa, & Trueswell, 2007; Gomez Gallo, Jaeger, & Smyth, 2008; Griffin & Spieler, 2006; Harbusch & Kempen, 2002; Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004; Hawkins, 1999; Hernandez, Bates, & Avila, 1996; Jaeger, 2005, 2006; Jaeger & Wasow, 2007; Levelt & Maassen, 1981; Loebell & Bock, 2003; Lohse, Hawkins, & Wasow, 2004; MacWhinney & Bates, 1978; McDonald, Bock, & Kelly, 1993; Meijer & Fox Tree, 2003; Myachyko, 2007; Osgood & Bock, 1977; Prat-Sala & Branigan, 2000; Race & MacDonald, 2003; Rosenbach, 2003, 2008; Salamoura & Williams, 2006; Salamoura & Williams, 2007; Sridhar, 1988; Stallings, MacDonald, & O’Seaghdha, 1998; Wasow, 1997)
• British vs. American English: (Bock et al., 2006)
• American vs. New Zealand English: (Bresnan & Hay, 2007)
• Welsh: (Chang et al., 2008)
• German: (Bader & Häussler, in press; Behaghel, 1909/10, 1930; Bresnan & Hay, 2007; Chang et al., 2008; Harbusch & Kempen, 2002; Hartsuiker, Schriefers, Bock, & Kikstra, 2003; Kempen & Harbusch, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2008; Loebell & Bock, 2003; Scheepers, 2003; van Nice & Dietrich, 2003)
• Platt Deutsch: (Strunk, 2005)
• Dutch: (Bock et al., 2001; Brysbaert, Fias, & Noel, 1998; Harbusch & Kempen, 2002; Hartsuiker, Kolk, & Huinck, 1999; Hartsuiker & Kolk, 1998; Hartsuiker, Kolk, & Huiskamp, 1999; Hartsuiker et al., 2003; Hartsuiker & Westenberg, 2000; Levelt, 1981, 1982; Meyer & Bock, 1999; Salamoura & Williams, 2006; van der Beek, 2005)
• Norwegian: (Ovrelid, 2004)
• Italian: (Bates & Devescovi, 1989; MacWhinney & Bates, 1978; Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Semenza, 1995; Vigliocco & Franck, 1999)
• French: (Brysbaert et al., 1998; Chang et al., 2008; Vigliocco & Franck, 1999, 2002)
• Spanish: (Anton-Mendez, Nicol, & Garrett, 2002; Brown-Schmidt & Konopka, in press; Gennari et al., 2005; Hartsuiker et al., 2004; Hernandez et al., 1996; Igoa, 1996; Meijer & Fox Tree, 2003; Prat-Sala & Branigan, 2000; Sridhar, 1988; Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Garrett, 1996)
• Hungarian: (Chang et al., 2008; MacWhinney & Bates, 1978; Sridhar, 1988)
• Finish: (Myachyko, 2007; Sridhar, 1988)
• Russian: (Lorimor, Bock, Zalkind, Sheyman, & Beard, 2008; Myachykov, 2007)
• Estonian: (Chang et al., 2008)
• Slovenian: (Sridhar, 1988)
• Slovak : (Badecker & Kuminiak, 2007)
• Serbo-Croation: (Chang et al., 2008; Gennari et al., 2005)
• Greek: (Branigan & Feleki, 1999; Branigan, Pickering, & Tanaka, 2008; Salamoura & Williams, 2007)
• Turkish: (Kita & Özüyrek, 2003; Kita et al., 2007; Sridhar, 1988)
• Hebrew: (Chang et al., 2008; Sridhar, 1988)
• Kanada: (Sridhar, 1988)
• Tamil: (Chang et al., 2008)
• Japanese: (Branigan et al., 2008; Chang, Kondo, & Yamashita, 2000; Chang et al., 2008; V. S. Ferreira & Yoshita, 2003; Fry, 2003; Kita & Özüyrek, 2003; Kita et al., 2007; Sridhar, 1988; Tanaka, Branigan, & Pickering, 2005; Yamashita & Chang, 2001, 2006)
• Korean: (Choi, 2007; Dennison, 2008; Lee, 2006)
• Chinese (Cantonese): (Chang et al., 2008; Matthews & Yeung, 2001; Peck, 2008; Sridhar, 1988)
• Sesotho : (Chang et al., 2008)
• Fiji: (Byrne & Davidson, 1985)
• Lummi: (Bresnan et al., 2001)
• Odawa: (Christianson & Ferreira, 2005)
• Mayan : (Norcliffe, 2008, In prep.)

• Direct cross-linguistic comparison of more than two languages: (Chang et al., 2008; Clark & Fox Tree, 2002; Gennari et al., 2005; MacWhinney & Bates, 1978; Prat-Sala & Branigan, 2000; Sridhar, 1988)
• Discussion of value of cross-linguistic investigation: (Bates & Devescovi, 1989; Hawkins, 2007; Vigliocco & Kita)

There are many more papers in sociolinguistics on different dialects of English and on other languages, as well as work on language change. However, most of this work does not include psycholinguistic controls. Work on language change often has to be conducted on small data sets.

References

1. Anton-Mendez, I., Nicol, J. L., & Garrett, M. E. (2002). The relation between gender and number agreement processing. Syntax, 5, 1-25.
2. Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. Newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28-55.
3. Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement, and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65-85.
4. Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (in press). A Corpus Study of the Determinants of Word Order in German. In. University of Konstanz.
5. Bates, E., & Devescovi, A. (1989). Crosslinguistic studies of sentence production. In B. MacWhinney & E. A. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistics study of sentence processing (pp. 225-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Behaghel, O. (1909/10). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedem. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110-142.
7. Behaghel, O. (1930). Von deutscher Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde, 44, 81-89.
8. Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70, 233-259.
9. Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1-47.
10. Bock, J. K. (1986). Exploring levels of processing in sentence production. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology, and linguistics (pp. 351-364). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
11. Bock, J. K. (1987). An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 119-137.
12. Bock, J. K., Butterfield, S., Cutler, A., Cutting, J. C., Eberhard, K. M., & Humphreys, K. R. (2006). Number agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to agree collectively. Language, 82, 64-113.
13. Bock, J. K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 83-128.
14. Bock, J. K., & Irwin, D. E. (1980). Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 467-484.
15. Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21.
16. Branigan, H. P., & Feleki, E. (1999). Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek language production. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver.
17. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(172-189).
18. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the Dative Alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation (pp. 69-94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
19. Bresnan, J., Dingare, S., & Manning, C. D. (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and Person in English and Lummi. Paper presented at the LFG01.
20. Bresnan, J., & Hay, J. (2007). Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy of the Syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua(Special Issue on Animacy).
21. Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (in press). Little houses and casas pequeñas: message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition.
22. Brysbaert, M., Fias, W., & Noel, M.-P. (1998). The Whorfian hypothesis and numerical cognition: Is “twentyfour” processed in the same way as “four-and-twenty”? Cognition, 66, 51-77.
23. Byrne, B., & Davidson, E. (1985). On putting the horse before the cart: Exploring conceptual bases of word order via acquisition of a miniature artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(4), 377-389.
24. Chang, F., Kondo, T., & Yamashita, H. (2000). Conceptual accessibilility influences scrambling in Japanese. Paper presented at the 13th CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing.
25. Chang, F., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Automatic evaluation of syntactic learners in typologically different languages. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(3), 198-213.
26. Choi, H.-W. (2007). Length and Order: A Corpus Study of Korean Dative-Accusative Construction. Discourse and Cognition, 14, 207-227.
27. Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Planning in sentence production: Evidence from a free word-order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98, 105-135.
28. Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73-111.
29. Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201-242.
30. Dennison, H. Y. (2008). Universal versus language-specific conceptual effects on shifted word-order production in Korean: Evidence from bilinguals. Working Papers in Linguistics: University of Hawaii at Manoa, 39(2), 1-16.
31. Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715-736.
32. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1998). Linearization strategies during language production. Memory & Cognition, 26, 88-96.
33. Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 724-755.
34. Ferreira, V. S. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 379-398.
35. Ferreira, V. S., & Yoshita, H. (2003). Given-New Ordering Effects on the Production of Scrambled Sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(6), 669-692.
36. Fry, J. (2003). Ellipsis and Wa-Marking in Japanese Conversation: Routledge.
37. Gennari, S., Mirkovic, J., & MacDonald, M. (2005). The role of animacy in relative clause production. Paper presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
38. Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 544-569.
39. Gomez Gallo, C., Jaeger, T. F., & Smyth, R. (2008). Incremental Syntactic Planning across Clauses. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) (pp. 845-850).
40. Griffin, Z. M., & Spieler, D. H. (2006). Observing the what and when of language production for different age groups by monitoring speakers’ eye movements. Brain and Language, 99, 272-288.
41. Harbusch, K., & Kempen, G. (2002). A quantitative model of word order and movement in English, Dutch and German complement constructions. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2002), Taipei (Taiwan) (pp. 328-334). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
42. Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H., & Huinck, W. J. (1999). Agrammatic production of subject-verb agreement: The effect of conceptual number. Brain and Language, 69, 119-160.
43. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998). Syntactic Persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(2), 143-184.
44. Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H. J., & Huiskamp, P. (1999). Priming word order in sentence production. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(1), 129-147.
45. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is Syntax Separate or Shared Between Languages? Psychological Science, 15(6), 409-414.
46. Hartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, J. K., & Kikstra, G. M. (2003). Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1316-1326.
47. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Westenberg, C. (2000). Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75(2), 27-39.
48. Hawkins, J. A. (1999). The relative ordering of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change, 11, 231-266.
49. Hawkins, J. A. (2007). Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 87-107.
50. Hernandez, A. E., Bates, E. A., & Avila, L. X. (1996). Processing across the language boundary: A cross-modal priming study of Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(4), 846-864.
51. Igoa, J. M. (1996). The Relationship between Conceptualization and Formulation Processes in Sentence Production: Some Evidence from Spanish. In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garcia-Albea & N. Sebastián-Gallés (Eds.), Language Processing in Spanish (pp. 305-351). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Jaeger, T. F. (2005). Optional “that” indicates production difficulty: Evidence from disfluencies. In Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, Aix-en-Provence, September 2005 (pp. 103-109).
53. Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and Syntactic Reduction in Spontaneous Speech. Stanford University.
54. Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. (2007). Processing as a Source of Accessibility Effects on Variation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
55. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). Word order scrambling as a consequence of incremental sentence production. In H. Härtl & H. Tappe (Eds.), Mediating between concepts and grammar (pp. 141-164). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
56. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004a). A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy effects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. In T. Pechmann & C. Habel (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production (pp. 173-181). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.
57. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004b). Generating natural word orders in a semi-free word order language: Treebank-based linearization preferences for German. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (pp. 350-354). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
58. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2005). The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic Evidence – Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives (pp. 329-349). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
59. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2008). Comparing linguistic judgments and corpus frequencies as windows on grammatical competence: A study of argument linearization in German clauses. In A. Steube (Ed.), The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures (pp. 179-192). Berlin: DeGruyter.
60. Kita, S., & Özüyrek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 16-32.
61. Kita, S., Özüyrek, A., Allen, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., & Ishizuka, T. (2007). Relations between syntactic encoding and co-speech gestures: Implications for a model of speech and gesture production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 1212-1236.
62. Lee, H. (2006). Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15, 69-96.
63. Levelt, W. J. M. (1981). The speaker’s linearization problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 295(1077), 305-315.
64. Levelt, W. J. M. (1982). Linearization in describing spatial networks. In S. Peters & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, Beliefs, and questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
65. Levelt, W. J. M., & Maassen, B. (1981). Lexical search and order of mention in sentence production. In W. Klein & W. Levelt (Eds.), Crossing the boundaries in linguistics (pp. 221-252). Dordrecht: Reidel.
66. Loebell, H., & Bock, J. K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41, 791-824.
67. Lohse, B., Hawkins, J., & Wasow, T. (2004). Processing domains in English verb-particle construction. Language, 80(2), 238-261.
68. Lorimor, H., Bock, J. K., Zalkind, E., Sheyman, A., & Beard, R. (2008). Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(6), 769-799.
69. MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. A. (1978). Sentential Devices for Conveying Givenness and Newness: A Cross-Cultural Developmental Study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 539-558.
70. Matthews, S., & Yeung, L. Y. Y. (2001). Processing motivations for topicalization in Cantonese. In K. Horie & S. Sato (Eds.), Cognitive-functional linguistics in an East Asian context (pp. 81-102). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
71. McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and word order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188-230.
72. Meijer, P. J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2003). Building syntactic structures in speaking: a bilingual exploration. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 184-195.
73. Meyer, A. S., & Bock, J. K. (1999). Representations and processes in the production of pronouns: Some perspectives from Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 281-301.
74. Myachykov, A. (2007). Integrating Perceptual, Semantic and Syntactic Information in Sentence Production. University of Glasgow.
75. Norcliffe, E. (2008). Variation and categorical constraints in Yucatec Maya relative clause constructions. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.
76. Norcliffe, E. (In prep.). Syntactic variation in cross-linguistic perspective: A view from Yucatec Maya. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
77. Osgood, C. E., & Bock, J. K. (1977). Salience and sentencing: Some production principles. Sentence Production – Develepments in Research and Theory, 89-140.
78. Ovrelid, L. (2004). Disambiguation of syntactic functions in Norwegian: modeling variation in word order interpretations conditioned by animacy and definiteness. In Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics.
79. Peck, J. (2008). The positional variations of prepositional phrases in Chinese: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Stanford University, Stanford.
80. Prat-Sala, M., & Branigan, H. P. (2000). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A corss-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 168-182.
81. Race, D. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). The use of “that” in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
82. Rosenbach, A. (2003). Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and of-genitive in English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (pp. 379-412). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
83. Rosenbach, A. (2008). Animacy and grammatical variation-Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua, 118, 151-171.
84. Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2006). Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 299-307.
85. Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). Processing verb argument structure across languages: Evidence for shared representations in the bilingual mental lexicon. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 627-660.
86. Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89, 179-205.
87. Sridhar, S. N. (1988). Cognition and Sentence Production: A Cross-linguistic study. New York: Springer Verlag.
88. Stallings, L. M., MacDonald, M. C., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1998). Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 392-417.
89. Strunk, J. (2005). The role of animacy in the nominal possessive constructions of modern low Saxon. Paper presented at the Pionier Workshop on ‘Animacy’.
90. Tanaka, M. N., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). The role of animacy in Japanese sentence production. Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference.
91. van der Beek, L. J. (2005). Topics in Corpus-Based Dutch Syntax. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
92. van Nice, K. Y., & Dietrich, R. (2003). Task-sensitivity of animacy effects: Evidence from German picture descriptions. Linguistics, 5, 825-849.
93. Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. E. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261-298.
94. Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186-215.
95. Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (1999). When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 455-478.
96. Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371-404.
97. Vigliocco, G., & Kita, S. Language-specific effects of meaning, sound and syntax: Implications for models of lexical retrieval in production. Language and Cognitive Processes.
98. Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 26, 347-362.
99. Yamashita, H., & Chang, F. (2001). Long before short preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition, 81(2), B45-B55.
100. Yamashita, H., & Chang, F. (2006). Sentence production in Japanese. In M. Nakayama, R. Mazuka & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics (Volume 2, Japanese). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.