The reason why I started to study psycholinguistics is the amazingly complex puzzle of language acquisition: It seems as if within the blink of an eye, babies learn how to integrate the acoustic, prosodic, lexical, syntactic, pragmatic, and discourse information necessary to comprehend their interlocutors. As adults, we use our language(s) all naturally, easily, unconsciously, and so rapidly in everyday life that – perhaps luckily – we are for the most part unaware of the high complexity of the underlying processes of comprehending and producing language. But when we reflect on this, children really accomplish what appears like an impossible mission. Cross-linguistic variance as well as inter-individual heterogeneity within a same language evidences the co-existence of diverse courses of language acquisition, and grammar acquisition in particular. Yet, we notice similar milestones of reached syntactic representations and syntactic processing strategies. These observations lead to think that babies are smart rather than “blank pages” and must be equipped with a powerful and universal language faculty, as suggested by the theory of Universal Grammar, to evolve so rapidly towards an adultlike level of proficiency.
UG [universal grammar] may be regarded as a characterization of the genetically determined language faculty. One may think of this faculty as a “language acquisition device,” an innate component of the human mind that yields a particular language through interaction with present experience, a device that converts experience into a system of knowledge attained: knowledge of one or another language. (Chomsky, 1986, p. 3) But language acquisition is sometimes delayed or severely impaired as in DLD, a condition associated with multiple genetic and environmental risk factors (Bishop, 2006) affecting a not inconsiderable part of kindergarten children (7 %; Tomblin et al., 1997). Although my dissertation work was primarily concerned with the fundamentals of typical grammar acquisition to bring up new pieces to the puzzle of language acquisition, I cannot ignore atypical development.
A fuller understanding of these fundamentals may hopefully enable future advances in clinical research on diagnostics and therapy of atypically developing children. As a speech and language therapist, as a consultant for elementary language pedagogy, as a mother, and also as a person who is always seeking for meaning in everything we do, I feel the absolute need for theoretical findings from the academic world to have useful repercussions in real-life and especially for the children. So, I end my conclusion with a suggestion of a broader implication for speech and language therapy, starting with what we know now based on my dissertation and ending with what we still don’t know.
What we know
Before the age of 2 years, word order representations, i.e., syntactic knowledge, are in an abstract, adultlike format and the syntactic operation of moving constituents (here object fronting) is already mastered, but syntactic processing, i.e., parsing, is still in maturation. Young children’s divergence from adults’ comprehension performance can thus be attributed to developing linguistic processing skills.
Between age 5 and 8, syntactic processing becomes more and more adultlike in that incremental parsing strategies are used and sentence revisions are performed. Older children’s (occasional) parsing difficulties can be attributed to insufficient non-linguistic processing skills, namely cognitive control, influencing the parsing outcome in children, an influence that has also been found in adults.
In brief, there is evidence for child-adult continuity in terms of syntactic representations (knowledge of grammar) and apparent non-adultlike syntactic performances rather stem from differences in linguistic and/or non-linguistic processing abilities determining how the knowledge of grammar is put into practice during real-time comprehension. Thus, to fully explain human language and understand language acquisition, both representations and processing mechanisms have to be taken into account.
What we don’t know
Obviously, my dissertation can’t answer the question to which extend children with DLD differ from children without DLD in terms of knowledge of grammar and use of grammar. But our findings contribute to a clearer idea of early language abilities in typical development, which provides a scientific basis to build on. I have shown that cognitive control is shaping the ability to use grammar in comprehension, which could be true for children with DLD as well. They could thus benefit from the cognitive training study mentioned earlier (see Proposal V), which would potentially generate useful implications for the therapy of speech and language disorders and promote evidence-based practice. It may open a door towards additional, digital remediation materials and therapeutic interventions that are grounded on an explanatory theory of syntactic processing. But first and foremost, future research needs to establish (a) if children with DLD show cognitive control limitations and (b) if these limitations indeed predict syntactic processing difficulties. If so, then cognitive control trainings like ours could be integrated in syntactic
rehabilitation programs (in line with Delage & Frauenfelder, 2020, and Stanford et al., 2019, on working memory training).
Digital-based cognitive trainings and more generally the use of digital media, an area that I am currently working on in my role as a consultant for elementary education, have shown benefits for cognitive development (e.g., enhanced visuo-spatial attention in school-children playing action-based video games; Dye & Bavelier, 2004). However, especially screen media also carry the risk of negative effects, for example on sleep and regeneration (e.g., Cheung et al., 2017;
Chindamo et al., 2019; Rettenbacher et al., 2020), if these are utilized passively, excessively and/or very early on. Thus, the advantages of a hoped-for cognitive training effect must be considered along with possible risks associated with digital-based trainings, particularly for young child populations. It is our responsibility, in research as well as in pedagogical and therapeutic practice, to purposefully use the possibilities of digital technologies to positively support child development.
To date, only one study reports cognitive training effects in children with DLD, showing that working memory training transfers on the production of 3rd-person accusative clitics, a clinical marker of language disorder in French (Stanford et al., 2019). This training comprised simple and complex span tasks as well as an N-back task without lures, which thus involves the ability of working memory updating, but not inhibition. To the best of my knowledge, no comparable study exists that targets cognitive control, and more specifically inhibitory control, which I showed to have a significant impact on syntactic processing. It could thus hold great potential for language therapy. Being able to use cognitive control training to strengthen syntactic processing abilities in children with DLD would be a valuable application of my dissertation work.
T HE END :
T O BE CONTINUED
“What we know is a drop, what we don’t know is an ocean.”
—Isaac Newton
REFERENCES
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 275–290.
https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.011
Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2001). What pre-school children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders. Cognitive Development, 16(2), 679–692.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00054-5
Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Graded representations in the acquisition of English and German transitive constructions. Cognitive Development, 23(1), 48–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.11.002
Aguado-Orea, J., Witherstone, H., Bourgeois, L., & Baselga, A. (2019). Learning to construct sentences in Spanish: a replication of the Weird Word Order technique. Journal of child language, 46(6), 1249–1259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000919000448
Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic
structure. Journal of Child Language 26(2), 339–356.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500099900375X
Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children’s productivity with word order and verb
morphology. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 952–965.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.952
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing Data. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985079
Ambridge, B. (2020). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language
acquisition. First Language, 40(5-6), 509–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719869731
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 23–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001
Arnon, I., & Clark, E. V. (2011). Why brush your teeth is better than teeth – children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development, 7(2), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2010.505489
Arosio, F., Adani, F., & Guasti, M. T. (2009). Grammatical features in the comprehension of Italian relative clauses by children. In J. M. Brucart, A. Gavarró, & J. Solà (Eds.), Merging features: computation, interpretation and acquisition, (pp. 138–155).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Flavia_Adani/publication/266456129_Grammatical _features_in_the_comprehension_of_Italian_Relative_Clauses_by_children/links/54f100 100cf24eb8794163c4.pdf
Arosio, F., Yatsushiro, K., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2012). Morphological information and memory resources in the acquisition of German Relative Clauses. Language Learning and Development, 8(4), 340–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.641887
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
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(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Bates, E., Dick, F., & Wulfeck, B. (1999). Not so fast: Domain-general factors can account for selective deficits in grammatical processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 96–97.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99241787
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., Dai, B., Scheipl, F., Grothendieck, G., Green, P., Fox, J., Bauer, A., & Krivitsky, P. N. (2015).
Package “lme4”: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using ‘Eigen’ and S4 (Version 1.1-21) [Software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html
Bencini, G. M. L., & Valian, V. (2008). Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds:
Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the development of language, 279(362), 1–61.
Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: the benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 65(4), 229–235. https//doi:10.1037/a0025406
Bishop, D. V. (2006). What causes specific language impairment in children? Current directions
in psychological science, 15(5), 217–221.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00439.x
Bloom, L. (1991). Language development from two to three. Cambridge University Press.
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 177–192.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In M. A.
Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). Academic Press.
Bock, J. K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I
Bornkessel‐Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real‐time comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross‐linguistic approach.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19–58.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x
Branigan, H. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1-2), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2006.00001.x
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. Harvard University Press.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental neuropsychology, 33(3), 205–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982312
Candan, A., Küntay, A. C., Yeh, Y. C., Cheung, H., Wagner, L., & Naigles, L. R. (2012).
Language and age effects in children’s processing of word order. Cognitive Development, 27(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.12.001
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children’s understanding of the agent–patient relations in the transitive construction: cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese,
German and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 267–300.
https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.015
Chan, R. C. K., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. H. (2008). Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 23(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010
Chang, F., Kobayashi, T., & Amano, S. (2009). Social factors in the acquisition of a new word order. First Language, 29(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723709105316 Cheng, L. L.-S., & Rooryck, J. (2000). Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax, 3(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00022
Cheung, C. H., Bedford, R., De Urabain, I. R. S., Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Smith, T. J. (2017).
Daily touchscreen use in infants and toddlers is associated with reduced sleep and delayed sleep onset. Scientific reports, 7, Art. 46104. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46104
Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0103_2
Chindamo, S., Buja, A., DeBattisti, E., Terraneo, A., Marini, E., Perez, L. J. G., Marconi, L., Baldo, V., Chiamenti, G., Doria, M., Ceschin, F., Malorgio, E., Tommasi, M., Speretto, M., Buzzetti, R., & Gallimberti, L. (2019). Sleep and new media usage in toddlers.
European journal of pediatrics, 178(4), 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03318-7
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 41–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.
https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
Christophe, A., Guasti, M. T., Nespor, M., & Ooyen, B. van. (2003). Prosodic structure and syntactic acquisition: the case of the head-direction parameter. Developmental Science, 6(2), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00273
Ciesielski, K. T., Lesnik, P. G., Savoy, R. L., Grant, E. P., & Ahlfors, S. P. (2006).
Developmental neural networks in children performing a Categorical N-Back Task.
Neuroimage, 33(3), 980–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.07.028
Clahsen, H., Eissenbeiss, S., & Penke, M. (1996). Lexical learning in early syntactic development.
In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Empirical findings, theoretical consideration and crosslinguistic comparisons (pp. 129–159). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.14.08cla
Contemori, C., & Marinis, T. (2014). The impact of umber mismatch and passives on the real-time processing of relative clauses. Journal of Child Language, 41(3), 1–32.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000172
Corsi, P. M. (1972). Human memory and the medial temporal region of the brain [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. McGill University.
Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers. In D. R. Dowty, L.
Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94–128). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. The MIT Press.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2037–2078.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006
Dautriche, I. (2012). The role of prosody in toddlers’ interpretation of verbs’ argument structure
[Master’s thesis]. École normale supérieure.
http://www.lscp.net/persons/dautriche/publi/Isabelle_Dautriche_M2.pdf
de Bruin, A., Treccani, B., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An example of publication bias? Psychological science, 26(1), 99–107.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557866
de Cat, C. (2007). Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics: Vol. 17. French dislocation:
Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Delage, H., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2020). Relationship between working memory and complex syntax in children with Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of Child Language, 47(3), 600–632. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000919000722
Demiral, Ş. B., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition, 106(1), 484–500.
https://doi.org10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.008
Demuth, K., & Tremblay, A. (2008). Prosodically-conditioned variability in children's production of French determiners. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 99–127.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000907008276
Drummond, A. (2013). Ibex farm. https://spellout.net/ibexfarm/
de Villiers, J. G., & Roeper, T. (1996). Questions after stories: Supplying context and removing it as a variable. In D. McDaniel, H. Cairns, & C. McKee (Eds.), Methods for assessing children's syntax (pp. 163–88). MIT Press.
de Villiers, J., Roeper, T., Bland-Stewart, L., & Pearson, B. (2008). Answering hard questions:
Wh-Movement across dialects and disorder. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(1), 67–103.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080041
de Villiers, J., Roeper, T., & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long-distance rules. In L.
Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics: Vol. 10. Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 257–297). Kluwer Academic.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3808-6_10
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual review of psychology, 64, 135–168.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Diamond, A., Carlson, S. M., & Beck, D. M. (2005). Preschool children's performance in task switching on the dimensional change card sort task: Separating the dimensions aids the ability to switch. Developmental neuropsychology, 28(2), 689–729.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2802_7
Diamond, A., & Kirkham, N. (2005). Not quite as grown-up as we like to think: Parallels between cognition in childhood and adulthood. Psychological Science, 16(4), 291–297.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01530.x
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Young German children’s early syntactic competence: A preferential looking study. Developmental Science, 11(4), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00703.x
Dye, M. W., & Bavelier, D. (2004). Playing video games enhances visual attention in children.
Journal of Vision, 4(11), 40. https://doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/4.11.40
Farrell Pagulayan, K., Busch, R. M., Medina, K. L., Bartok, J. A., & Krikorian, R. (2006).
Developmental normative data for the Corsi Block-tapping task. Journal of clinical and
experimental neuropsychology, 28(6), 1043–1052.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390500350977
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of non-canonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences.
Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 725–745.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1998). Syntactic Reanalysis, Thematic Processing, and Sentence Comprehension. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics: Vol. 21. Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. (pp. 73–100).
Springer-Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_3
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1-2), 71–83.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions.
Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 250–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00004-9
Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid Expectation Adaptation during
Syntactic Comprehension. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77661.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
Fisher, C. (2002). The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: a reply to
Tomasello, M. (2000). Cognition, 82(3), 259–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00159-7
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 427–473. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178071
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23(5), 407–434.
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics: Vol. 21. Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101–141).
Springer-Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_4
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (2000). Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 25–36.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005168206061
Franck, J., & Lassotta, R. (2012). Revisiting evidence for lexicalized word order in young children. Lingua, 122(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.010
Franck, J., Millotte, S., & Lassotta, R. (2011). Early word order representations: novel arguments against old contradictions. Language Acquisition, 18(2), 121–135.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2011.530536
Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5(4), 519–559. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047505
Franck, J., Millotte, S., Posada, A., & Rizzi, L. (2013). Abstract knowledge of word order by 19 months: An eye-tracking study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(2), 323–336.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000713
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Sentence reanalysis, and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F.
Ferreira (Eds.), Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics: Vol. 21. Reanalysis in sentence processing. (pp. 143–76). Springer-Science+Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_5
Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. F. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002
Gagliardi, A., Mease, T., & Lidz, J. (2016). Discontinuous development in the acquisition of filler-gap dependencies: Evidence from 15- and 20-month-olds. Language Acquisition, 23(3), 234–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2015.1115048
Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 51–60.
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship.
Applied psycholinguistics, 27(4), 513–543. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060383 Gavarró, A., Leela, M., Rizzi, L., & Franck, J. (2015). Knowledge of the OV parameter setting at
19 months: Evidence from Hindi-Urdu. Lingua, 154, 27–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.001
Gerken, L. (2006). Decisions, decisions: infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition, 98(3), B67–B74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.03.003 Gerken, L., Landau, B., & Remez, R. E. (1990). Function morphemes in young children’s speech perception and production. Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 204–216.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.2.204
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C., & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science, 17(8), 684–691.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01767.x
Gervain, J., Nespor, M., Mazuka, R., Horie, R., & Mehler, J. (2008). Bootstrapping word order in prelexical infants: A Japanese-Italian cross-linguistic study. Cognitive Psychology, 57(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.001
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
Gibson, E., & Wexler, K. (1994). Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 407–454.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178869
Gomez, R. L. (2002). Variability and Detection of Invariant Structure. Psychological Science, 13(5), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00476
Gompel, R. P. G. van, Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming.
Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 335–362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic
processing. Psychological Science, 13(5), 425–430.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00475
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Grammar (2nd edition, pp.
73–113). MIT Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.). (1963). Universals of language. MIT Press.
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: a corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3
Grüter, T. (2005). Comprehension and production of French object clitics by child second
Grüter, T. (2005). Comprehension and production of French object clitics by child second