Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-tw422 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-23T02:55:32.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2025

Dan Parker
Dan Parker
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistic Illusions
A Case Study on Agreement Attraction
 , pp. 153 - 168
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acuña-Fariña, C. (2024). Syntactic processing: An overview. Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6(4), 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R., & Matessa, M. (1997). A production system theory of serial memory. Psychological Review, 104(4), 728–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(2), 186–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arehalli, S., & Wittenberg, E. (2021). Experimental filler design influences error correction rates in a word restoration paradigm. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnett, N., & Wagers, M. (2017). Subject encodings and retrieval interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 22–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arregui, A., CliftonJr, C., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided VPs with flawed antecedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 232–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avetisyan, S., Lago, S., & Vasishth, S. (2020). Does case marking affect agreement attraction in comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 748–769.Google ScholarPubMed
Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (2000). Case and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2005). Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(1), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoshuk, L. M. (1974). After dinner talk: Taste illusions: Some demonstrations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 237, 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, G. (1960). Indirekte Größenbestimmung der rezeptiven Felder der Retina beim Menschen mittels der Hermannschen Gittertäuschung. Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie, 272, 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). Wiley.Google Scholar
Bhatia, S., & Dillon, B. (2022). Processing agreement in Hindi: When agreement feeds attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 125, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, I. A. (2023). What are large language models supposed to model? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(11), 987–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleotu, A. C., & Dillon, B. (2023). Romanian (subject-like) DPs attract more than bare nouns: Evidence from speeded continuations. Journal of Memory and Language, 134, 1–19.Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(1), 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., & Cutting, J. (2004). Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43(2), 83–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., Nicol, J., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 330–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, L. (2023). What’s an error anyway? Speaker- and listener-centered approaches to studying language errors. In Federmeier, K. D. & Montag, J. L. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Speaking, writing and communicating (Vol. 78, pp. 1–39). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. (2019). Speaker-specific processing of anomalous utterances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(4), 764–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. (2021). Probabilistic online processing of sentence anomalies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(8), 959–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical functional syntax. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. (2001). The failure to use gender information in parsing: A comment on van Berkum, Brown, & Hagoort (1999). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(5), 453–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürkner, P. C. (2017). Brms: An r package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttner, A. C. (2007). Questions versus statements: Challenging an assumption about semantic illusions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 779–789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cai, Z. G., Zhao, N., & Pickering, M. J. (2022). How do people interpret implausible sentences? Cognition, 225, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantor, A. D., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Expertise effects in the Moses illusion: Detecting contradictions with stored knowledge. Memory, 25(2), 220–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carreiras, M., & CliftonJr, C. (2004). The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERPs and beyond. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chacón, D. (2022). Default is different: Relations and representations in agreement processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(6), 785–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S. Y., & Husband, M. (2018). Comprehending anaphoric presuppositions involves memory retrieval too. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America (Vol. 3, pp. 1–11). Linguistic Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. A. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 299–300). Wiley.Google Scholar
Chow, W. Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, M. H., & MacDonald, M. (2009). A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 59(1), 126–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chromý, J., Brand, J., Laurinavichyute, A., & Lacina, R. (2023). Number agreement attraction in Czech and English comprehension: A direct experimental comparison. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chromý, J., Lacina, R., & Dotlačil, J. (2023). Number agreement attraction in Czech comprehension: Negligible facilitation effects. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science, 7, 802–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(1), 37–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CliftonJr, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11(1), 11–39.Google Scholar
CliftonJr, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In van Gompel, R. P. G., Fischer, M. H., Murray, W. S., & Hill, R. L. (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–371). Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Sturt, P. (2018a). Coargumenthood and the processing of pronouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(10), 1235–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Sturt, P. (2018b). Retrieval interference and semantic interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Sturt, P. (2023). Illusions of plausibility in adjuncts and co-ordination. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 28(9), 1318–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, M. G., Paterson, K. B., & Filik, R. (2022). Online representations of non-canonical sentences are more than good-enough. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(1), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalrymple, M., Shieber, S. M., & Pereira, F. (1991). Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(4), 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deevy, P. L. (2000). Agreement checking in comprehension: Evidence from relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dempsey, J., Christianson, K., & Tanner, D. (2022). Misretrieval but not misrepresentation: A feature misbinding account of post-interpretive effects in number attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(9), 1727–1745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, M. (2001). “Pluringulars”, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review, 18, 19–41.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the backdoor. In Kepser, S. & Reis, M. (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 145–165). Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1568–1575.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelmann, F., Jӓger, L. A., & Vasishth, S. (2019). The effect of prominence and cue association on retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science, 43(12), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enochson, K., & Culbertson, J. (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon mechanical Turk. PLOS ONE, 10(3), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2002). An endogenous distributed model of ordering in serial recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felser, C., Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2017). Editorial: Encoding and navigating linguistic representations in memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, C., & Barlow, M. (1988). Introduction. In Ferguson, C. & Barlow, M. (Eds.), Agreement in natural language (pp. 1–22). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, R., & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics, 19(2), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Colonna, S., & Rizzi, L. (2015). Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S. L., & Ernst, P. (2019). Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1581–1593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, S. L., Trompenaars, T., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic differences in processing double-embedded relative clauses: Working-memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science, 40(3), 554–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129–189). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, H. (2024). Memory retrieval in online sentence parsing: Empirical evidence, computational modelling, and simulations. Computational Brain & Behavior, 7(3), 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, H., & Cunnings, I. (2022). Interference and filler–gap dependency formation in native and non-native language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 48(5), 702–716.Google ScholarPubMed
Fujita, H., & Cunnings, I. (2023). Interference in quantifier float and subject-verb agreement. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 38(7), 1001–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, H., & Yoshida, M. (2024). Online reflexive resolution and interference. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 39(4), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, R., Gibson, E., & Levy, R. P. (2020). Lossy-context surprisal: An information-theoretic model of memory effects in sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 44(3), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geier, J., Bernáth, L., Hudák, M., & Séra, L. (2008). Straightness as the main factor of the Hermann grid illusion. Perception, 37(5), 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1660–1712). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 8051–8056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Alonso, J., Cunnings, I., Fujita, H., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2021). Gender attraction in sentence comprehension. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Universals of language. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, M., Futrell, R., Levy, R., & Gibson, E. (2022). A resource-rational model of human processing of recursive linguistic structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(43), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In NAACL ’01: Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies (pp. 1–8). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C., Staub, A., & Dillon, B. (2019). The grammatical asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardt, D. (1993). Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania].Google Scholar
Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78(3), 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, K., & Kikstra, G. M. (2003). Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject–verb agreement. Memory & Cognition, 31(8), 1316–1326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 760–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haussler, J., & Bader, M. (2015). An interference account of the missing-VP effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermann, L. (1870). Eine Erscheinung simultanen Kontrastes. Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie, 3, 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2016). Licensing NPIs: Some negative (and positive) results. In Larrivée, P. & Lee, C. (Eds.), Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 281–305). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, K. R., & Bock, K. (2005). Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 689–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Israel, M. (2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 701–723). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ivanova-Sullivan, T., Sekerina, I. A., & Lago, S. (2024). Bulgarian clitics are sensitive to number attraction. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 3(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X’-syntax: A study of phrase structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Benz, L., Roeser, J., Dillon, B. W., & Vasishth, S. (2015). Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Mertzen, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Vasishth, S. (2020). Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study. Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in agreement processing: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, N., & Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, E., Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2009). Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition, 112(1), 55–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kehler, A. (2000). Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 533–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kertz, L. (2013). Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language, 89(3), 390–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshev, M., Cartner, M., Meltzer-Asscher, A., & Dillon, B. (2025). A working memory model of sentence processing as binding morphemes to syntactic positions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 17(1), 88–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, C., Kobele, G., Runner, J., & Hale, J. (2011). The acceptability cline in VP-ellipsis. Syntax, 14(4), 318–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, C., & Runner, J. (2018). The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41, 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. J., & Xiang, M. (2024). Incremental discourse-update constrains number agreement attraction effect. Cognitive Science, 48(9), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2(1), 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, J., & Aissen, J. (1971). I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(2), 241–247.Google Scholar
Kohonen, T. (1980). Content-addressable memories. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2004). Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: Evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. Psychophysiology, 41(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of weak and strong polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209–257.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (2nd ed.). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K., Aguinis, H., & Joo, H. (2012). The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 722–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Negative polarity items as inherent scope relations [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas].Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. (1980). On the notion “affective” in the analysis of negative polarity items. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. (1996). Negation and polarity items. In Lappin, S. (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 321–341). Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Lago, S., Acuna Fariña, C., & Meseguer, E. (2021). The reading signatures of agreement attraction. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science, 5, 132–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lago, S., & Felser, C. (2018). Agreement attraction in native and nonnative speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 619–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lago, S., Gračanin-Yuksek, M., Şafak, D. F., Demir, O., Kırkıcı, B., & Felser, C. (2019). Straight from the horse’s mouth: Agreement attraction effects with Turkish possessors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(3), 398–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lago, S., Shalom, D., Sigman, M., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2015). Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, B. (2018). A student’s guide to Bayesian statistics. SAGE.Google Scholar
Langlois, V. J., Zerkle, S., & Arnold, J. E. (2023). Does referential expectation guide both linguistic and social constraints on pronoun comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language, 129, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S. (1992). The syntactic basis of ellipsis resolution. In Berman, S. & Hestvik, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Working papers of the Sonderforschungsbereich 340, Report No. 29–1993, SFB, 340, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Lappin, S. (1996). The interpretation of ellipsis. In Lappin, S. (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 145–175). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and common sense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 437–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurinavichyute, A., & von der Malsburg, T. (2022). Semantic attraction in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 46(2), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurinavichyute, A., & von der Malsburg, T. (2024). Agreement attraction in grammatical sentences and the role of the task. Journal of Memory and Language, 137, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E., & Phillips, C. (2022). Why non-native speakers sometimes outperform native speakers in agreement processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Lee, S. Y., & Vu, M. H. (2024). The effects of distance on NPI illusive effects in BERT. In Al-Onaizan, Y., Bansal, M., & Chen, Y.-N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 9443–9457). Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leivada, E. (2020). Language processing at its trickiest: Grammatical illusions and heuristics of judgment. Languages, 5(4), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Lapata, M. & Ng, H. T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 234–243). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2013). Memory and surprisal in human sentence comprehension. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (Ed.), Current issues in the psychology of language sentence processing (pp. 78–114). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(50), 21086–21090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R. (1998). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden path. In Fodor, J. A. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing: Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 21 (pp. 247–284). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linebarger, M. C. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T., & Leonard, B. (2018). Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 690–695). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Logačev, P., & Bozkurt, M. I. (2021). Statistical power in response signal paradigm experiments. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2211–2217). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Logačev, P., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 996–1012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. E. (2018). Cue integration during sentence comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence from ellipsis. PLOS ONE, 13(11), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(5), 1231–1239.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2011). Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2018). Retrieval cues and syntactic ambiguity resolution: Speed–accuracy tradeoff evidence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(6), 769–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, J. (2002). A thematic guide to optimality theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McElreath, R. (2016). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (1998). Attended and non-attended states in working memory: Accessing categorized structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 155–200). Academic Press.Google Scholar
McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1989). Serial position and set size in short-term memory: Time course of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 118(4), 346–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1993). Serial retrieval processes in the recovery of order information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264(5588), 746–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRoy, S. W., & Hirst, G. (1990). Race-based parsing and syntactic disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 14(3), 313–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehler, J. (1963). Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(4), 250–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meng, M., & Bader, M. (2021). Does comprehension (sometimes) go wrong for noncanonical sentences? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchant, J. (2019). Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In van Craenenbroeck, J. & Temmerman, T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp. 19–45). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 421–491). Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Isard, S. D. (1963). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montalbetti, M. (1979). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar
Muller, H., & Phillips, C. (forthcoming). Negative polarity illusions. In Deprez, V. & Espinal, M. T. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of negation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muller, H., Resnik, P., & Phillips, C. (2020). Explaining item-wise variability in Moses illusions. Talk presented at the 33rd Annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas – Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10, 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicenboim, B., & Vasishth, S. (2018). Models of retrieval in sentence comprehension: A computational evaluation using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (2003). The psycholinguistics of anaphora. In Barss, A. (Ed.), Anaphora: A reference guide (pp. 72–104). Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Greaves, M. (2012). Modeling working memory: An interference model of complex span. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 779–819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortego, K. M. (2018). Is the chicken ready to eat? Electrophysiological signatures of ambiguity in the brain [BA thesis, Reed College].Google Scholar
Orth, W., Sloggett, S., & Yoshida, M. (2025). Positive polarity items: An illusion of ungrammaticality. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 40(4), 547–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orth, W., Yoshida, M., & Sloggett, S. (2021). Negative polarity item (NPI) illusion is a quantification phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 47(6), 906–947.Google ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6), 739–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paape, D., & Vasishth, S. (2022). Conscious rereading is confirmatory: Evidence from bidirectional self-paced reading. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 1(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paape, D., & Vasishth, S. (2025). Do local coherence effects exist in English reduced relative clauses? Journal of Memory and Language, 140, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paape, D., Vasishth, S., & Malsburg, T. von der (2020). Quadruplex negatio invertit? The on-line processing of depth charge sentences. Journal of Semantics, 37(4), 509–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankratz, E., Yadav, H., Smith, G., & Vasishth, S. (2021). Statistical properties of the speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) paradigm in sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2176–2182). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Parker, D. (2018). A memory-based explanation of antecedent-ellipsis mismatches: New insights from computational modeling. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Parker, D. (2019). Two minds are not always better than one: Modeling evidence for a single sentence analyzer. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Parker, D. (2022). Ellipsis interference revisited: New evidence for feature markedness effects in retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 124, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D., & An, A. (2018). Not all phrases are equally attractive: Experimental evidence for selective agreement attraction effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, D., & An, A. (2019). Interference in language processing reflects direct-access memory retrieval: Evidence from drift-diffusion modeling. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2523–2529). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Parker, D., Lago, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Interference in the processing of adjunct control. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, D., & Lantz, D. (2017). Encoding and accessing linguistic representations in a dynamically structured holographic memory system. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D., & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, D., & Phillips, C. (2017). Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D., Shvartsman, M., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2017). The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In Escobar, L., Torrens, V., & Parodi, T. (Eds.), Language processing and disorders (pp. 121–144). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Paspali, A., & Marinis, T. (2020). Gender agreement attraction in Greek comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patson, N. D., & Husband, E. M. (2016). Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 950–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearlmutter, N., Garnsey, S., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In Runner, J. (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (Vol. 37, pp. 147–180). Emerald Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ristic, B., Molinaro, N., & Mancini, S. (2016). Agreement attraction in Serbian. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 242–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryskin, R., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2023). Prediction during language comprehension: What is next? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(11), 1032–1052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar
Sanford, A., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santesteban, M., Zawiszewski, A., Erdocia, K., & Laka, I. (2017). On the nature of clitics and their sensitivity to number attraction effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schad, D. J., Nicenboim, B., Bürkner, P. C., Betancourt, M., & Vasishth, S. (2023). Workflow techniques for the robust use of Bayes factors. Psychological Methods, 28(6), 1404–1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlueter, Z., Parker, D., & Lau, E. (2019). Error-driven retrieval in agreement attraction rarely leads to misinterpretation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitz, T., Dotlačil, J., Nouwen, R., Winkowski, J., & Hoeks, M. (2024). Semantic accessibility and interference in pronoun resolution. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 3(1), 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrimpf, M., Blank, I. A., Tuckute, G., Kauf, C., Hosseini, E. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2021). The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(45), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwab, J. (2023). Lexical variation in NPI illusions – NPI illusions as a scalar phenomenon. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 1(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Shain, C., Meister, C., Pimentel, T., Cotterell, R., & Levy, R. (2024). Large-scale evidence for logarithmic effects of word predictability on Reading time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(10), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, E. Y., Staub, A., & Sanders, L. D. (2013). Event-related brain potential evidence that local nouns affect subject–verb agreement processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 498–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slioussar, N. (2018). Forms and features: The role of syncretism in number agreement attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slioussar, N., Magomedova, V., & Makarova, P. (2022). The role of case syncretism in agreement attraction: A comprehension study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slioussar, N., & Malko, A. (2016). Gender agreement attraction in Russian: Production and comprehension evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, G., Franck, J., & Tabor, W. (2018). A self-organizing approach to subject–verb number agreement. Cognitive Science, 42, 1043–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, G., Franck, J., & Tabor, W. (2021). Encoding interference effects support self-organized sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 124, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, G., & Tabor, W. (2018). Toward a theory of timing effects in self-organized sentence processing. In Juvina, I., Houpt, J., & Myers, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 138–143). The Applied Cognitive Science Lab.Google Scholar
Solomon, E. S., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49(1), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, S. (1978). Universals of human language (Vol. 4: Syntax). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. (1986). Evidence for online gap creation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. (2013). Syntactic constraints on referential processing. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 136–159). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., CliftonJr, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 431–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Takahashi, S., & Fox, D. (2005). MaxElide and the re-binding problem. In Georgala, E. & Howell, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (pp. 223–240). CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Grey, S., & van Hell, J. G. (2017). Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600 during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 54(2), 248–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & CliftonJr, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, A. (1993). Representing visual objects. In Meyer, D. E. & Kornblum, S. (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV (pp. 163–175). MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, A. (1999). Solutions to the binding problem: Progress through controversy and convergence. Neuron, 24(1), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, A., Sykes, M., & Gelade, G. (1977). Selective attention and stimulus integration. In Dornic, S. (Ed.), Attention and performance VI: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Attention and Performance (pp. 333–361). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trollope, A. (1883). An autobiography. William Blackwood and Sons.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. A., & Almeida, D. (2017). The complex structure of agreement errors: Evidence from distributional analyses of Agreement Attraction in Arabic. In Lamont, A. & Tetzloff, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (pp. 45–54). GLSA.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., & Almeida, D. (2015). Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: Self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tung, T. Y., & Brennan, J. R. (2023). Expectations modulate retrieval interference during ellipsis resolution. Neuropsychologia, 190, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Türk, U., & Logačev, P. (2024). Agreement attraction in Turkish: The case of genitive attractors. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 39(4), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Gompel, R., Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 225–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1998). Brain activity during speaking: From syntax to phonology in 40 msec. Science, 280(5363), 572–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brussow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasishth, S., & Engelmann, F. (2020). Sentence comprehension as a cognitive process: A computational approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., & Nicenboim, B. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas – Part 1. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10, 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., & Kern, S. (2010). Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from head-final structures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 533–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68(1), B13–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villata, S., Tabor, W., & Franck, J. (2018). Encoding and retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from agreement. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vorwerg, C. (2012). Experimental methods in psycholinguistics. In Ender, A., Leemann, A., & Wälchli, B. (Eds.), Methods in contemporary linguistics (Vol. 247, pp. 363–388). De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M. W. (2008). The structure of memory meets memory for structure in linguistic cognition [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland].Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2014). Going the distance: Memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1274–1304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, L., Hagoort, P., & Yang, Y. (2009). Semantic illusion depends on information structure: ERP evidence. Brain Research, 1282(6), 50–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wason, P. C., & Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(Pt 4), 591–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). Deconstructing a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 543–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, M. E., & Treisman, A. M. (2002). Binding in short-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 48–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wikipedia, . (2025). Illusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion.Google Scholar
Wilcox, E. G., Pimentel, T., Meister, C., Cotterell, R., & Levy, R. P. (2023). Testing the predictions of surprisal theory in 11 languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11, 1451–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 101–139.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain & Language, 108(1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2013). Dependency-dependent interference: NPI interference, agreement attraction, and global pragmatic inferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, W., & Futrell, R. (2025). Informativity enhances memory robustness against interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 142, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadav, H., Paape, D., Smith, G., Dillon, B. W., & Vasishth, S. (2022). Individual differences in cue weighting in sentence comprehension: An evaluation using approximate Bayesian computation. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science, 6, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yadav, H., Smith, G., Reich, S. S., & Vasishth, S. (2023). Number feature distortion modulates cue-based retrieval in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 129, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanilmaz, A., & Drury, J. (2018). Prospective NPI licensing and intrusion in Turkish. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(1), 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ye, Y., & Arnold, J. E. (2023). Learning the statistics of pronoun reference: By word or by category? Cognition, 239, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoo, M. H., & Tollan, R. (2024). Transitivity and non-uniform subjecthood in agreement attraction. Memory and Cognition, 52(3), 536–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshida, M., Dickey, M. W., & Sturt, P. (2013). Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yun, J., Lee, S. Y., & Drury, J. (2017). Negative polarity illusion in Korean. In Guillermot, C., Yoshida, T., & Lee, S. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL13) (pp. 1–10). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zehr, J., & Schwarz, F. (2018). PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX).Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Gibson, E., & Davis, F. (2023). Can language models be tricked by language illusions? Easier with syntax, harder with semantics. In Jiang, J., Reitter, D., & Deng, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 1–14). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Ryskin, R., & Gibson, E. (2023). A noisy-channel approach to depth-charge illusions. Cognition, 232, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Dan Parker, The Ohio State University
  • Book: Linguistic Illusions
  • Online publication: 30 October 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009447317.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Dan Parker, The Ohio State University
  • Book: Linguistic Illusions
  • Online publication: 30 October 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009447317.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Dan Parker, The Ohio State University
  • Book: Linguistic Illusions
  • Online publication: 30 October 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009447317.011
Available formats
×