CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,537Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage Development and Disorders

Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies

Gibson, Edward·1998·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper proposes a new theory of the relationship between the sentence processing mechanism and the available computational resources. This theory--the Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory (SPLT)--has two components: an integration cost component and a component for the memory cost associated with keeping track of obligatory syntactic requirements. Memory cost is hypothesized to be quantified in terms of the number of syntactic categories that are necessary to complete the current input string as a grammatical sentence. Furthermore, in accordance with results from the working memory literature both memory cost and integration cost are hypothesized to be heavily influenced by locality (1) the longer a predicted category must be kept in memory before the prediction is satisfied, the greater is the cost for maintaining that prediction; and (2) the greater the distance between an incoming word and the most local head or dependent to which it attaches, the greater the integration cost. The SPLT is shown to explain a wide range of processing complexity phenomena not previously accounted for under a single theory, including (1) the lower complexity of subject-extracted relative clauses compared to object-extracted relative clauses, (2) numerous processing overload effects across languages, including the unacceptability of multiply center-embedded structures, (3) the lower complexity of cross-serial dependencies relative to center-embedded dependencies, (4) heaviness effects, such that sentences are easier to understand when larger phrases are placed later and (5) numerous ambiguity effects, such as those which have been argued to be evidence for the Active Filler Hypothesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1

Cites

158 of 158 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adult sentence processing studies have consistently reported a subject advantage for relative clause processing.

    “Additionally, a host of adult sentence processing studies have consistently reported a subject advantage for RC processing (e.g. Gibson, 1998).”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Gibson, 1998

  • Efforts to map high-dimensional data for easy clinician visualization and interpretation remain a significant challenge.

    “For this reason, some effort has been undertaken to map the information contained in high-dimensional data to be easily visualized and interpreted by clinicians, but this remains a significant challenge [103], [104].”

    From A Review of Automated Speech and Language Features for Assessment of Cognitive and Thought Disorders (2020) · cites this paper as [103]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gibson, E.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Gibson, Edward
ORCID
Gibson, Edward
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-08
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
1-76
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1
OpenAlex
W2117823388
Cited by
2,537
References
158
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 150 · 2021: 144 · 2020: 132 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 97 · 2017: 110 · 2016: 95 · 2015: 150 · 2014: 133 · 2013: 103 · 2012: 109
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
syntactic complexity, sentence processing, integration costs, syntactic dependencies, locality, relative clauses, ambiguity, computational resources
MeSH terms
Decision Trees, Humans, Judgment, Language Development, Linguistics, Memory, Mental Processes, Models, Theoretical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review