The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The cognitive basis for linguistic structures1
Abstract
The Rockefeller University (at present, The University of Arizona) Originally published in R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and Language Development (New York: Wiley & Sons, 1970), 279–362. We can all agree that the capacity to symbolize and communicate in language has powerful effects on how we think and behave, but how does the way we think affect the structure of our language? This article explores the ways in which specific properties of language structure and speech behavior reflect certain general cognitive laws. Recent investigations of language have made an important simplifying assumption: the primary subject for linguistic description is linguistic knowledge, as opposed to linguistic behavior. This heuristic strategy has facilitated progress in the formal description of the “abstract” structures of language, but has left open the question of how such structures are learned by children and utilized by adults. Previous attempts to integrate linguistic structure and speech behavior have been efforts to find direct mappings of abstract linguistic structures onto language learning, speech perception, and speech production. Although the details of these mappings differ, the basic postulate is the same: actual speech behavior is some regular function of the abstract linguistic structure originally isolated in linguistic investigations. That is, grammar rests at the epicenter of all language behavior, with different functions of grammatical structure accounting for different kinds of behaviors (for example, talking, listening, memorizing, and the like).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies
Gibson, E. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1 · Cited by 2,537
The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676 · Cited by 2,259
Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(92)90039-z · Cited by 1,856
Natural language and natural selection
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081061 · Cited by 1,330
Metadata
- Authors
- Bever, T. G.
- Venue
- Language Down the Garden Path
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2013-08-29
- Pages
- 1-80
- OpenAlex
- W2506931122
- Cited by
- 1,288
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 107.39
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The cognitive basis for linguistic structures1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0001
- The paper
- Bever, T. G. (2013). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures1. Language Down the Garden Path. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199677139.003.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.