Developmental Stages in PT: A Developmental Stages in PT: A Fresh LookFresh Look

PT Workshop KioloaPT Workshop Kioloa

3 December 20073 December 2007

H.Charters@auckland.ac.nzH.Charters@auckland.ac.nz

Abstract Abstract

• Does syntactic unification underlie all Does syntactic unification underlie all instances of morphological agreement?instances of morphological agreement?

• If not, how do we differentiate those If not, how do we differentiate those that do and those that do not?that do and those that do not?

• And what changes in processing do And what changes in processing do underlie the shift from a fixed underlie the shift from a fixed sequence of semantic roles to more sequence of semantic roles to more variable orders? variable orders?

Overview of Paper:Overview of Paper:

• Empirical overview of emergence Empirical overview of emergence orderorder

• Summary of PT and AlternativeSummary of PT and Alternative

• How to differentiate semantics and How to differentiate semantics and syntax?syntax?– Developing a Methodology?Developing a Methodology?

SLA developmentSLA development

• 'Chunks''Chunks'

• Short utterances of key content-wordsShort utterances of key content-words

• Words of the same class appear in the Words of the same class appear in the same positions. Classes may be same positions. Classes may be – Semantic: entity vs event; animate vs Semantic: entity vs event; animate vs

inanimate;inanimate;– Thematic: agent / experiencer vs patient / Thematic: agent / experiencer vs patient /

theme;theme;– Pragmatic: given/topic vs new/focusPragmatic: given/topic vs new/focus

LaterLater

• Expanded utterances Expanded utterances – Secondary lexical items: modifiers Secondary lexical items: modifiers – Affixes/ inflections.Affixes/ inflections.

• More variable word orderMore variable word order

• Morphology more target-likeMorphology more target-like

• Complex (bi-clausal) structures Complex (bi-clausal) structures emerge.emerge.

Summary of PT Account Summary of PT Account

• The original view: delays in The original view: delays in information exchange.information exchange.

• Three types of affix emerge, each Three types of affix emerge, each making different demands in terms making different demands in terms of Information exchange. of Information exchange.

• Their emergence accounts for 5 Their emergence accounts for 5 stages in Acquisition…stages in Acquisition…

Stages and RationaleStages and Rationale

• 1. Lemma Stage: no inflections 1. Lemma Stage: no inflections – No lexical classes No lexical classes – Direct ‘flow’ from concept to output; no Direct ‘flow’ from concept to output; no

intermediate processingintermediate processing

• 2. Lexical stage: lexical inflections 2. Lexical stage: lexical inflections – New categorial proceduresNew categorial procedures– ‘‘Diacritic featuresDiacritic features are retrieved directly from are retrieved directly from

conceptual structure’conceptual structure’– No information exchange in syntactic processor.No information exchange in syntactic processor.

•3. Phrasal stage: ‘phrasal’ 3. Phrasal stage: ‘phrasal’ agreement agreement – Agreement between words “produced Agreement between words “produced

in in one and the same iterationone and the same iteration” of ” of conceptual structure, (1998c, p. 113)conceptual structure, (1998c, p. 113)

– Information exchange is Information exchange is immediateimmediate and and locallocal Det and Adj are contained Det and Adj are contained in NP.in NP.

• 4. Simplified S: a transitional phase: 4. Simplified S: a transitional phase: – Agreement at Clause level in limited contextsAgreement at Clause level in limited contexts

• 5. Sentential: ‘inter-phrasal’ agreement5. Sentential: ‘inter-phrasal’ agreement– ““While the one phrase is being produced the While the one phrase is being produced the

head of the agreeing phrase has not been head of the agreeing phrase has not been conceptualisedconceptualised” (Pienemann 1998c, p. 77). ” (Pienemann 1998c, p. 77).

– Information exchange is Information exchange is delayeddelayed and and crosses crosses phrase boundary.phrase boundary.

Key idea: Key idea: Timing of information Timing of information exchange in syntaxexchange in syntax

• NoneNone

• ImmediateImmediate– simultaneous delivery/activation of simultaneous delivery/activation of

entity/ N and attribute /Adjentity/ N and attribute /Adj

• Delayed Delayed – sequential delivery/ activation of sequential delivery/ activation of

argument / Subj NP and predicate + argument / Subj NP and predicate + time / V+tensetime / V+tense

Critique of Original PTCritique of Original PT

Delays in delivery may vary across Delays in delivery may vary across instances, structures and languages instances, structures and languages

Kempen and Hoenkamp's Kempen and Hoenkamp's IPGIPG• Conceptual structure is represented by case-frame notation Conceptual structure is represented by case-frame notation

– want(actor: John)(object: hit(actor: John)(patient: Peter)). want(actor: John)(object: hit(actor: John)(patient: Peter)).

– = ‘John wanted to hit Peter’ = ‘John wanted to hit Peter’

• ‘‘Expansions’ Expansions’ specify paths through conceptual structurespecify paths through conceptual structure – e.g “object-patient” leads to the concept “Peter” (Kempen and e.g “object-patient” leads to the concept “Peter” (Kempen and

Hoenkamp, 1987 pg 213).Hoenkamp, 1987 pg 213).

• They are They are delivered to grammatical encoder delivered to grammatical encoder in any orderin any order

• The encoder searches for structures whose output order matches The encoder searches for structures whose output order matches input order.input order.

• Information may be ‘held’ in grammatical Information may be ‘held’ in grammatical or phonemic formor phonemic form till it till it ‘fits’ the chosen structure.‘fits’ the chosen structure.

• The representation of the The representation of the entire conceptual structureentire conceptual structure is available is available for sampling as needed (?)for sampling as needed (?)

Levelt's Speech Production Levelt's Speech Production ModelModel• Lexical items are ‘activated’ when Lexical items are ‘activated’ when their core their core

features ‘resonate’ with conceptual structurefeatures ‘resonate’ with conceptual structure..

• The most specific (The most specific (closest matchedclosest matched) item is ) item is retrieved’ (Levelt (1989:213). retrieved’ (Levelt (1989:213).

• Subj, V , Tense can be delivered Subj, V , Tense can be delivered in any order,in any order, as as they resonatethey resonate– In In ‘The child gave the mother the cat’‘The child gave the mother the cat’

“ “give could [be] retrieved … in just the same way as child give could [be] retrieved … in just the same way as child [is] – that is, by mere “resonance” with the corresponding [is] – that is, by mere “resonance” with the corresponding fragment of the message.” (Levelt, 1989:241). fragment of the message.” (Levelt, 1989:241).

• Subj V &T could be accessed/ delivered Subj V &T could be accessed/ delivered simultaneously.simultaneously.

Psycholinguistic research Psycholinguistic research supports this view supports this view

• Studies of Italian show influence of ‘conceptual Studies of Italian show influence of ‘conceptual plurals’ on number marking:plurals’ on number marking:– ‘‘The label on the bottles was/were….The label on the bottles was/were….

• (Vigliocco, Butterworth & Garrett, 996; Vigiocco & Nicol, (Vigliocco, Butterworth & Garrett, 996; Vigiocco & Nicol, 1998; Franck, Vigliooco & Nicol, 2002)1998; Franck, Vigliooco & Nicol, 2002)

• ““Number and gender can be retrieved Number and gender can be retrieved independently from conceptual structures for independently from conceptual structures for both number agreement between the subject and both number agreement between the subject and the verb and gender agreement between the the verb and gender agreement between the subject and a predicative adjective.” Pienemann, subject and a predicative adjective.” Pienemann, DiBiase and Kawaguchi (2005, p 220).DiBiase and Kawaguchi (2005, p 220).

ImplicationsImplications

• The conceptual-grammatical The conceptual-grammatical interface does not force the interface does not force the separation of information about separation of information about entities and events.entities and events.

• There are differences between There are differences between languages. Syntactic processes languages. Syntactic processes affect the syntax-conceptual affect the syntax-conceptual interface.interface.

Information Exchanges are Information Exchanges are not as represented in PTnot as represented in PT

According to LFGAccording to LFG

• Word order constraints at the lexical Word order constraints at the lexical stage employ the same information stage employ the same information exchanges as required for exchanges as required for agreement:agreement:– feature mapping between lexical, feature mapping between lexical,

constituent and functional structures; constituent and functional structures;

– feature merger of categorial valuesfeature merger of categorial values

The Key advances at the The Key advances at the phrasal stage arephrasal stage are

• Mapping features from two c-Mapping features from two c-structure nodes to the same f-structure nodes to the same f-structure structure (convergent mapping)(convergent mapping)

• Merger of lexical features in f-Merger of lexical features in f-structurestructure

ConclusionsConclusions

• There is no clear theoretical difference There is no clear theoretical difference between so-called 'lexical', 'phrasal' between so-called 'lexical', 'phrasal' and 'inter-phrasal' processingand 'inter-phrasal' processing– LFG does not support the view that there is LFG does not support the view that there is

NO information exchange in lexical NO information exchange in lexical inflectioninflection

– Psycho-linguistic models do not support Psycho-linguistic models do not support the view that Subj & V are necessarily the view that Subj & V are necessarily delivered separately while N and delivered separately while N and modifiers are delivered togethermodifiers are delivered together

Agreement can arise through Agreement can arise through Co-activationCo-activation

• Core semantic content Core semantic content resonatesresonates with related with related concepts concepts

• 2 lexical items2 lexical items with same core values will with same core values will resonate resonate together.together.

• If both are of the same lexical type, the more If both are of the same lexical type, the more specific one will 'win' specific one will 'win'

• If different, both can be selectedIf different, both can be selected– e.g. a single kangaroo nearby e.g. a single kangaroo nearby – ‘ ‘a’ kangaroo’a’ kangaroo’ and and 'this'this' should all ‘resonate’ / ' should all ‘resonate’ / 'this'this' will ' will

winwin

• Items encoding the same part of a message Items encoding the same part of a message inevitably have the same valuesinevitably have the same values

Storage may be phonological, Storage may be phonological, not grammaticalnot grammatical

• Storage in the grammatical encoder Storage in the grammatical encoder is a function of output order / is a function of output order / Language specific rules, not input Language specific rules, not input order. order.

• Words can be ‘stored’ in phonemic Words can be ‘stored’ in phonemic formform

The ‘Extended’ View: non-The ‘Extended’ View: non-linearity linearity

Pienemann et al, 2005, Di Pienemann et al, 2005, Di Biase and Kawaguchi 2002Biase and Kawaguchi 2002

Phonetic disjunctionPhonetic disjunction

• The separation of features from their The separation of features from their lexical ‘source’ in the stream of lexical ‘source’ in the stream of speech;speech;In In ''Peter sees a dog'Peter sees a dog'

““the feature values PRES=3 and NUM=SG the feature values PRES=3 and NUM=SG are present in the NPSUBJ, and they need are present in the NPSUBJ, and they need to be utilized again after the verb stem."to be utilized again after the verb stem."

Pienemann et al (2005 Chapter 7: Pienemann et al (2005 Chapter 7: 204) 204)

C-structural disjunctionC-structural disjunction

• The need to unify features ‘across a The need to unify features ‘across a constituent boundary’ constituent boundary’ – There is a c-structural boundary (VP?) There is a c-structural boundary (VP?)

between Subj and V but one between between Subj and V but one between Det, Adj P and N (they are c-structural) .Det, Adj P and N (they are c-structural) .

F-structural disjunctionF-structural disjunction

• Interphrasal agreement “involves an Interphrasal agreement “involves an exchange of information between exchange of information between phrases with different heads” phrases with different heads”

• In phrasal agreement, “feature In phrasal agreement, “feature unification between the noun and its unification between the noun and its modifiers is entirely restricted to the modifiers is entirely restricted to the noun phrase.noun phrase.

(DiBiase and Kawaguchi, 2002 pp 282-284).(DiBiase and Kawaguchi, 2002 pp 282-284).

Problems with ‘extended’ Problems with ‘extended’ viewview

Phonetic disjunction does not Phonetic disjunction does not distinguish nominal and distinguish nominal and sentential agreement. sentential agreement.

• In SVO order storage time could be In SVO order storage time could be minimal. minimal.

• Features of Det, Adj, N can be equally Features of Det, Adj, N can be equally separate:separate:

– La ville ancienne / L’ancienne ville La ville ancienne / L’ancienne ville Det N Adj / Det Adj NDet N Adj / Det Adj N

S and ‘NP’ are C-structural S and ‘NP’ are C-structural parallels parallels

The definition of a Head is not clear-cut. The definition of a Head is not clear-cut.

• Zwicky (1985) defines heads as Zwicky (1985) defines heads as – An obligatory item; An obligatory item; – Having the same distribution as the whole Having the same distribution as the whole

phrase. phrase.

– Determining the 'concord' features for the Determining the 'concord' features for the phrase. phrase.

– Bearing features expressing syntactic Bearing features expressing syntactic relationsrelations

• These criteria make VP the head of S These criteria make VP the head of S – V is obligatory in S and bears features of Subj (a GF)V is obligatory in S and bears features of Subj (a GF)

• He *(knows) the truthHe *(knows) the truth

• And they make Det and Adj co-heads with N And they make Det and Adj co-heads with N – N is not obligatory, but Det (often) isN is not obligatory, but Det (often) is

– Det and Adj together have the same distribution as Det and Adj together have the same distribution as whole‘NP’whole‘NP’

• I am *(the) cook todayI am *(the) cook today

• *(The) cook is here.*(The) cook is here.

• I prefer the shorter/ The shorter looks betterI prefer the shorter/ The shorter looks better

– Det and Adj can express Case Det and Adj can express Case

• DiBiase and Kawaguchi’s discussion DiBiase and Kawaguchi’s discussion of Italian (of Italian (tanti amicitanti amici) treats N as the ) treats N as the head of NP, and Det as a SPEC of NPhead of NP, and Det as a SPEC of NP

• VP is the head of S; the Subj is a GFVP is the head of S; the Subj is a GF

• Det and Adj are either GFs or co-Det and Adj are either GFs or co-heads with Nheads with N

Parallel C- structures for Parallel C- structures for DP and S/VP DP and S/VP

VP (= S)VP (= S) NPNP

SUBJ =SUBJ = == SPEC=SPEC= ==NPNP V’ V’ DetDet N’N’

== == VV N N

PeterPeter snores snores tantitanti amiciamici

The features of SUBJ are mapped via the node VP;The features of SUBJ are mapped via the node VP;The features of Det (or AdjP) are mapped via the NP node, The features of Det (or AdjP) are mapped via the NP node,

Agreement in S and ‘NP’ Agreement in S and ‘NP’ are F-structural parallelsare F-structural parallels

SS PRED PRED 'SNORE<SUBJ>’'SNORE<SUBJ>’

VP SUBJ PRED ‘PETER’VP SUBJ PRED ‘PETER’VV NP NP PERS 3PERS 3

Name Name NUM SGNUM SG

OBJ OBJ PRED = ‘friend’PRED = ‘friend’DetDet SPEC = ‘many’SPEC = ‘many’NPNP NUM = PLNUM = PLN’N’ GEND = MASCGEND = MASCNNAP ADJ PRED AP ADJ PRED

‘australian’ ‘australian’ AA

• V, VP and S are labels for one f-structure containing a sub-V, VP and S are labels for one f-structure containing a sub-structure SUBJ. structure SUBJ.

• Det, A, AP, NP, N’ and N are labels for one f-structure containing Det, A, AP, NP, N’ and N are labels for one f-structure containing a substructure ADJ(unct) .a substructure ADJ(unct) .

DifferencesDifferences

• In SIn S– Agreement features appear in the inner f-Agreement features appear in the inner f-

structure because the c-structural annotation structure because the c-structural annotation SUBJ =SUBJ = identifies them as features of a identifies them as features of a substructure labelled SUBJ;substructure labelled SUBJ;

– Other features of V are mapped to the outer Other features of V are mapped to the outer structure because of the head annotation structure because of the head annotation ==. .

• In NPIn NP– Agreement features appear in the outer f-Agreement features appear in the outer f-

structure because of the co-head annotations, structure because of the co-head annotations, – The lexical structure of the Adjective identifies The lexical structure of the Adjective identifies

the PRED value as a feature of the GF the PRED value as a feature of the GF [ADJUNCT]. [ADJUNCT].

No Significant Differences No Significant Differences

In both Adj-N and Subj-V agreement In both Adj-N and Subj-V agreement AGR features are separated from PRED AGR features are separated from PRED values through a combination of head values through a combination of head

and GF assignments. and GF assignments.

Alternative Account of Alternative Account of StagesStages

Actual DifferencesActual Differences

• Lexical inflection: Lexical inflection: – No head relationsNo head relations– No unification in f-structureNo unification in f-structure

• Adj-N agreement: Adj-N agreement: – Head / co-head relationsHead / co-head relations– Non-argument GF (ADJ), Non-argument GF (ADJ),

• Subj-V agreementSubj-V agreement– Head/ co-head relationsHead/ co-head relations– Argument GF (SUBJ). Argument GF (SUBJ). – Lexical Licensing (Coherence); Lexical Licensing (Coherence); – Search for PRED value (Completeness)Search for PRED value (Completeness)

The Lexical Stage The Lexical Stage RequirementsRequirements

• Each word dominated by same ‘S’ node in Each word dominated by same ‘S’ node in c-structure c-structure – (So that words can be structurally and (So that words can be structurally and

prosodically integrated)prosodically integrated)

• Mapping of a-roles to c-structureMapping of a-roles to c-structure– Word order tends to observe thematic Word order tends to observe thematic

hierarchyhierarchy

• N V N order needs unification of categorial N V N order needs unification of categorial features and/or ….features and/or ….

ProposalsProposals

• Each N node expresses an a-feature Each N node expresses an a-feature

• As words respond to conceptual As words respond to conceptual content, the associated a-role content, the associated a-role activates the a-feature at an N node.activates the a-feature at an N node.

• The active word is inserted at the The active word is inserted at the active nodeactive node

Basic Mapping Principles Basic Mapping Principles

• 1-1 mapping of c- to f-structure1-1 mapping of c- to f-structure– Features of each node are mapped to Features of each node are mapped to

distinct f-structuresdistinct f-structures

• Hierarchical mapping of a- to f-Hierarchical mapping of a- to f-structurestructure– Features of arguments are mapped to Features of arguments are mapped to

an f-structure within the f-structure of an f-structure within the f-structure of the predicate whose roles they bear. the predicate whose roles they bear.

The StagesThe Stages

The lexical stage The lexical stage

• Lexical items expressLexical items express– inherent features (incl. PRED values) which respond to inherent features (incl. PRED values) which respond to

conceptual content. conceptual content. – a Categorial featurea Categorial feature

• C-structure containsC-structure contains– One level (S) above the lexical One level (S) above the lexical

• The grammar can mapThe grammar can map– lexical features and a-roles directly to c-structure nodes;lexical features and a-roles directly to c-structure nodes;– features from a V node to a higher c-structure node and to features from a V node to a higher c-structure node and to

one f-structure (convergent mapping), one f-structure (convergent mapping), – features from each N node to f-structures within V’s. features from each N node to f-structures within V’s.

• The grammar can unifyThe grammar can unify– lexically specified Categorial features with Cat-features in c-lexically specified Categorial features with Cat-features in c-

structure structure

Phrasal StagePhrasal Stage

• DiBiase and Kawaguchi's proposed DiBiase and Kawaguchi's proposed analysis of Italian agreement:analysis of Italian agreement:– Two new types of lexical structure-Two new types of lexical structure-

• one including an embedded PRED feature [ADJ one including an embedded PRED feature [ADJ PRED], PRED],

• one including a Spec feature instead of a PRED value.one including a Spec feature instead of a PRED value.

– New mapping requirements New mapping requirements • the ADJ PRED feature must be mapped to a sub-the ADJ PRED feature must be mapped to a sub-

structure within a sub-structurestructure within a sub-structure

• Co-head relations force features of the modifier and Co-head relations force features of the modifier and head to merge. head to merge.

Alternative Alternative

• The annotation The annotation ADJ=ADJ= is added to a is added to a fixed node in c-structurefixed node in c-structure

• Features specified on item there will Features specified on item there will be embedded within the matrix f-be embedded within the matrix f-structurestructure

AdvantagesAdvantages

• ParsimonyParsimony– One adjustment in c-structureOne adjustment in c-structure

• Builds directly on abilities of lexical Builds directly on abilities of lexical stagestage– specifying a feature at a c-structure node, specifying a feature at a c-structure node, – mapping a feature-set to an embedded f-mapping a feature-set to an embedded f-

structure.structure.

ConsequencesConsequences

• The N procedure now feeds a phrasal The N procedure now feeds a phrasal procedure which feeds S. procedure which feeds S.

• The functional procedure Adjunct The functional procedure Adjunct also feeds NP. also feeds NP.

• Semantic co-activation , not Semantic co-activation , not unification, because there is no unification, because there is no merger.merger.

Syntactic agreement & Syntactic agreement & Divergent Mapping Divergent Mapping

• Divergent mappingDivergent mapping– Mapping the features of one word to two different f-structures. Mapping the features of one word to two different f-structures.

• Lexical changeLexical change– Add Add NUM =c X to Lexical structure of Adj form, NUM =c X to Lexical structure of Adj form, OROR

• Lexical AND C-structural changeLexical AND C-structural change– Replace Replace ADJ= ADJ= annotation with head annotation annotation with head annotation = = making making

it a co-head with N, AND it a co-head with N, AND – Add the label [ADJ ] to PRED feature in the lexical structure of Add the label [ADJ ] to PRED feature in the lexical structure of

AdjectiveAdjective• ExclusionsExclusions

– This does not allow Sub-V agreement, because that involves This does not allow Sub-V agreement, because that involves additional processes.additional processes.

Sentential Stage: Sentential Stage: GF licensingGF licensing

• Addition of GFs to V's lexical structureAddition of GFs to V's lexical structure• Subj values are all extrinisic to VSubj values are all extrinisic to V• Requires divergent mapping as Subj Requires divergent mapping as Subj

and V have distinct PRED valuesand V have distinct PRED values• Coherence requires merger of GF Coherence requires merger of GF

features expressed by V and Subj nodefeatures expressed by V and Subj node• Completeness requires search for Completeness requires search for

PRED value in SubjPRED value in Subj

ConclusionsConclusions

• Interactions between components of the processor are Interactions between components of the processor are more variable than PT suggestsmore variable than PT suggests

• Storage needs can arise sporadically in any structures. Storage needs can arise sporadically in any structures. • C-structural differences between Det/ Adj – N agreement C-structural differences between Det/ Adj – N agreement

and Subj-V agreement are more apparent than real; and Subj-V agreement are more apparent than real; • Developmental steps do not correspond simply to lexical, Developmental steps do not correspond simply to lexical,

phrasal and sentential levels of c-structure. phrasal and sentential levels of c-structure. • They can be understood as responses to the need to They can be understood as responses to the need to

separate or link lexical features inserted in increasingly separate or link lexical features inserted in increasingly hierarchical c-structures.hierarchical c-structures.

• Extrinsic features involve more abstract processing than Extrinsic features involve more abstract processing than intrinsic features.intrinsic features.

ImplicationsImplications

• Structures that combine syntactic Structures that combine syntactic unification of extrinsic features and an unification of extrinsic features and an argument GF are expected to emerge at argument GF are expected to emerge at about the same time as Subj-V agreement. about the same time as Subj-V agreement. (Topic Obj agreement in Italian involves (Topic Obj agreement in Italian involves the latter, but not the former. )the latter, but not the former. )

• Det-N agreement and Adj-N agreement Det-N agreement and Adj-N agreement could be different could be different

• We should distinguish We should distinguish – Agreement for intrinsic vs extrinsic featuresAgreement for intrinsic vs extrinsic features

Types of agreementTypes of agreement

• Semantic Co-activation: features intrinsic Semantic Co-activation: features intrinsic to all itemsto all items

• Syntactic unification: features extrinsic to Syntactic unification: features extrinsic to one item, one item,

• A combination of the two: items share A combination of the two: items share some intrinsic and some extrinsic features. some intrinsic and some extrinsic features.

• Syntactic Agreement mediated through Syntactic Agreement mediated through adjunct GFadjunct GF

• Syntactic Agreement mediated through Syntactic Agreement mediated through argument GF that needs to be licensed. argument GF that needs to be licensed.

Where to from here?Where to from here?

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Intrinsic and Extrinsic FeaturesFeatures

• Refine the definition of intrinsic and Refine the definition of intrinsic and extrinsic features extrinsic features – Intrinsic Features are inherently Intrinsic Features are inherently

associated with a semantic core.associated with a semantic core.– They must be referred to when defining They must be referred to when defining

a semantic core a semantic core

Suggested associationsSuggested associations

• ClassClass Basic denotationsBasic denotationsAssociationsAssociations

• AdjectiveAdjective propertyproperty Gender Gender /Class/Class

• Determiner Determiner accessibilityaccessibility LocationLocation

• NounNoun entityentity Gender/NumberGender/Number

• QuantifiersQuantifiers QuantityQuantity entity, mass entity, mass

ReferencesReferences

• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation . New York: Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation . New York: Academic Press. Academic Press.

• Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical Functional Syntax: Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Malden, Mass: Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical Functional Syntax: Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.Blackwell.

• Caplan, D. & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal Working Memory and Sentence Comprehension. Caplan, D. & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal Working Memory and Sentence Comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1) (pp. 77-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1) (pp. 77-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Carpenter, P. A. & Just, M. A. (1988). The role of working memory in language comprehension. In D. Carpenter, P. A. & Just, M. A. (1988). The role of working memory in language comprehension. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovksy (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon. Klahr & K. Kotovksy (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

• Corbett Greville G, Norman M. Fraser and Scott McGlashan eds (1993) “Heads in grammatical Corbett Greville G, Norman M. Fraser and Scott McGlashan eds (1993) “Heads in grammatical theory” CUPtheory” CUP

• Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar. San Diego, Calif; London: Academic Press.Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar. San Diego, Calif; London: Academic Press.• Di Biase, Bruno, and Kawaguchi, Satomi. 2002. Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Di Biase, Bruno, and Kawaguchi, Satomi. 2002. Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability

Theory: language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Theory: language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research 18:274-302.Language Research 18:274-302.

• Gick, M. L., Craik, F. I. M., & Morris, R. G. (1988). Task complexity and age differences in working Gick, M. L., Craik, F. I. M., & Morris, R. G. (1988). Task complexity and age differences in working memory. Memory & Cognition, 16, 353-361. memory. Memory & Cognition, 16, 353-361.

• Grimshaw, 1987. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In Bresnan (ed), 1987: Grimshaw, 1987. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In Bresnan (ed), 1987: 85-14885-148

• Hudson, Richard A. (1987) Zwicky on Heads. Journal of Linguistics 23: 109-32Hudson, Richard A. (1987) Zwicky on Heads. Journal of Linguistics 23: 109-32• Kempen, Gerard, and Hoenkamp, E. 1987. An incremental procedural grammar for sentence Kempen, Gerard, and Hoenkamp, E. 1987. An incremental procedural grammar for sentence

formulation. Cognitive Science 11:201-258.formulation. Cognitive Science 11:201-258.• King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working

memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602. memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602. • Levelt, W.J.M. 1989. Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Levelt, W.J.M. 1989. Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

• Morris, R. G., Gick, M. L., & Craik, F. I. M. (1988). Processing resources and age differences in working memory. Memory Morris, R. G., Gick, M. L., & Craik, F. I. M. (1988). Processing resources and age differences in working memory. Memory and Cognition, 16, 362-366. and Cognition, 16, 362-366.

• Nichols, Johanna (1986) Head-marking and dependent-marking Grammar. Language 62:56-119. Nichols, Johanna (1986) Head-marking and dependent-marking Grammar. Language 62:56-119. • Payne (1993) The headedness of noun phrases: slaying the nominal hydra. In Corbett et al (eds.) Corbett Greville G, Payne (1993) The headedness of noun phrases: slaying the nominal hydra. In Corbett et al (eds.) Corbett Greville G,

Norman M. Fraser and Scott McGlashan eds “Heads in grammatical theory” CUP114-139.Norman M. Fraser and Scott McGlashan eds “Heads in grammatical theory” CUP114-139.• Pienemann, Manfred. 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Pienemann, Manfred. 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.• Pienemann, Manfred ed. 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: J.Benjamins Pienemann, Manfred ed. 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: J.Benjamins

Pub. Co.Pub. Co.• Pienemann, Manfred, Di Biase, Bruno, and Kawaguchi, Satomi. 2005. Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann, Pienemann, Manfred, Di Biase, Bruno, and Kawaguchi, Satomi. 2005. Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann,

Manfred ed Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Chapter 7 199-252. Manfred ed Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Chapter 7 199-252. • Radford, Andrew (1993) Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus. In Corbett Greville G, Norman M. Fraser and Radford, Andrew (1993) Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus. In Corbett Greville G, Norman M. Fraser and

Scott McGlashan eds “Heads in grammatical theory” CUP. 73-113.Scott McGlashan eds “Heads in grammatical theory” CUP. 73-113.• Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. M. Halle, G. Miller, & J. pesnan (Ed.), Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. M. Halle, G. Miller, & J. pesnan (Ed.),

Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality Campidge, MA: MIT Press.Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality Campidge, MA: MIT Press.• Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Hildepandt, N. (1987). Working memory and written sentence comprehension. In M. Coltheart Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Hildepandt, N. (1987). Working memory and written sentence comprehension. In M. Coltheart

(Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (pp. 531-555). London: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (pp. 531-555). London: Lawrence Erlbaum. • Waters, G. S., Caplan, D., & Rochon, E. (1995). Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Waters, G. S., Caplan, D., & Rochon, E. (1995). Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with

Alzheimer's Disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 1-30. Alzheimer's Disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 1-30. • Waters, G., & Caplan, D. (under review ). The effect of a digit load on syntactic processing in subjects with high and low Waters, G., & Caplan, D. (under review ). The effect of a digit load on syntactic processing in subjects with high and low

working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, • Wright, R. E. (1981). Aging, divided attention, and processing capacity. Journal of Gerontology, Wright, R. E. (1981). Aging, divided attention, and processing capacity. Journal of Gerontology, •   36(No. 5), 605-614. 36(No. 5), 605-614. • Zwicky, Arnold, M. (1985) “Heads” Journal of Linguistics, 21:1-29Zwicky, Arnold, M. (1985) “Heads” Journal of Linguistics, 21:1-29