Poster Session 1

Wednesday, March 14, 6:30-8:30 pm

Structurally informative prosodic cues in center-embedded and right-branching sentences ▪ Lauren Ackerman & Masaya Yoshida (Northwestern University)
Subject encodings and retrieval interference ▪ Nathan Arnett & Matthew Wagers (University of California, Santa Cruz)
On the processing of epistemic modals ▪ Dimka Atanassov, Florian Schwarz, & John Trueswell (University of Pennsylvania)
Missing-VP effects: Headedness does not matter ▪ Markus Bader (Goethe University Frankfurt) & Jana Häussler (University of Potsdam)
Agreement errors as rational encoding errors ▪ Leon Bergen & Edward Gibson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Effects of frequency, predictability, & length in a rational model of eye movements in reading ▪ Klinton Bicknell & Roger Levy (University of California, San Diego)
How many ducks did Heidi see swimming in the pond: Altering context speech rate creates real-time expectations that can cause words to appear and disappear ▪ Meredith Brown (University of Rochester), Laura C. Dilley (Michigan State University), & Michael K. Tanenhaus (University of Rochester)
Common ground and interactive feedback in online language understanding: The role of attentional and executive networks ▪ Sarah Brown-Schmidt & Scott H. Fraundorf (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)
Pitch trumps duration in a grouping perception task ▪ Alejna Brugos & Jonathan Barnes (Boston University)
Effects of phonological confusability on speech duration ▪ Esteban Buz & T. Florian Jaeger (University of Rochester)
Structural-frequency affects processing cost: Evidence from Chinese relative clauses ▪ Zhong Chen (Cornell University), Qiang Li (Dalian University of Technology), Lena Jaeger, & Shravan Vasishth (University of Potsdam)
Listening to resumptives: An auditory study of object resumption in English ▪ Lauren Eby Clemens (Harvard University), Adam Morgan (University of California, Santa Cruz), Maria Polinsky (Harvard University), & Ming Xiang (University of Chicago)
Object animacy effects in more or less transitive sentences ▪ Anna Czypionka, Katharina Spalek (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin & Berlin School of Mind and Brain), & Isabell Wartenburger (Universität Potsdam & Berlin School of Mind and Brain)
Integration costs on auxiliaries: A self-paced reading study using WebExp ▪ Vera Demberg (Saarland University)
Neurolinguistic evidence for independent contributions of verb-specific and event-related knowledge to predictive processing ▪ Michael Walsh Dickey & Tessa Warren (University of Pittsburgh; VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System)
Ungrammatical interpretations of reflexive anaphors: Online or offline interference? ▪ Brian Dillon (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
An Alignment-based model of scan patterns during Visual World experiments ▪ Michal Dziemianko & Frank Keller (University of Edinburgh)
An ACT-R framework for modeling the interaction of syntactic processing and eye movement control ▪ Felix Engelmann, Shravan Vasishth, Ralf Engbert, & Reinhold Kliegl (University of Potsdam)
Brain regions sensitive to structure in language vs. music are largely non-overlapping in the human brain ▪ Evelina Fedorenko (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Joshua McDermott (New York University), Samuel Norman-Haignere, & Nancy Kanwisher (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
The effect of implied speed on eye movements in a (blank) visual world ▪ Heather Ferguson, Tessa Fealy, & Jennifer Booth (University of Kent)
Top-down effect of syntactic category expectations on spoken word recognition ▪ Neal Fox (Brown University)
The accent by the adjunct: Pitch accenting interacts with argument structure and previous reference in online reference resolution ▪ Scott H. Fraundorf & Duane G. Watson (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)
Orthographic and phonological priming during normal sentence reading ▪ Steven Frisson, Linda Wheeldon, Hannah Koole, & Louisa Hughes (University of Birmingham)
Expecting the unexpected: How discourse expectations can reverse predictability effects in reading time ▪ Richard Futrell (Stanford University) & Hannah Rohde (University of Edinburgh)
Repeated names, pronouns and null pronouns in Brazilian Portuguese and Italian ▪ Carlos Gelormini-Lezama (Instituto de Neurología Cognitiva & Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas), Jefferson C. Maia, (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), Mirta Vernice (University of Milano-Bicocca), Maria Luiza Cunha Lima (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), & Amit Almor (University of South Carolina)
Different processing dynamics for metaphor and metonymy ▪ Marta Ghio (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa), Lewis Bott (Cardiff University), Petra B. Schumacher (Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz), & Valentina Bambini (IUSS, Pavia & Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa)
Advance planning and speech error production in a picture description task ▪ Maureen Gillespie (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) & Neal J. Pearlmutter (Northeastern University)
Coordinating lexical and structural information during language production: Evidence from semantic and structural priming ▪ Heeju Hwang & Elsi Kaiser (University of Southern California)
Sentence processing is “good enough”: Evidence from sentence-video matching ▪ Gaurav Kharkwal & Karin Stromswold (Rutgers University, New Brunswick)
Question structure and ellipsis ▪ Christina Kim, Timothy Dozat, & Jeffrey Runner (University of Rochester)
Do reflexives always find a grammatical antecedent for themselves? ▪ Joseph King, Caroline Andrews, & Matthew Wagers (University of California Santa Cruz)
A Bayesian belief-updating model of syntactic expectation adaptation ▪ Dave Kleinschmidt, Alex B. Fine, & T. Florian Jaeger (University of Rochester)
Vowel identification shaped by phrasal gender agreement expectation ▪ Andrea E. Martin, Philip J. Monahan, & Arthur G. Samuel (Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language)
Susceptibility to similarity-based interference influences judgments of long-distance dependencies ▪ Dan Michel (University of California, San Diego)
A connectionist model of graded effects in local syntactic coherence interpretation ▪ Daniel Müller-Feldmeth, Peter Baumann, Sascha Wolfer, & Lars Konieczny (University of Freiburg)
Processing of filler-gap dependencies in complex NP islands: Evidence from Hebrew ▪ Bruno Nicenboim (University of Potsdam)
Propositional truth-value and the comprehension of ‘impossible’ counterfactual worlds: Evidence from event-related potentials ▪ Mante S. Nieuwland (Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language)
Phrasal complexity and ellipsis ▪ Joanna Nykiel (University of Silesia)
Cataphoric pronoun dependencies in Dutch: An ERP study ▪ Leticia Pablos, Bobby Ruijgrok, Jenny Doetjes, & Lisa L. Cheng (Leiden University)
PRO beats gap, revisited: Eyetracking evidence ▪ Daniel Petty (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), Mara Breen (Mount Holyoke College), & Adrian Staub (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
Is reading a blog the same as reading a book? The structure and predictive validity of self-report measures of reading habits ▪ Cris Rabaglia & Gary Marcus (New York University)
Processing literary metaphor with and without original context: ERP evidence ▪ Donatella Resta (University of Salento), Valentina Bambini (IUSS, Pavia & Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa), & Mirko Grimaldi (University of Salento)
Domain restriction and discourse structure: Evidence from processing ▪ Florian Schwarz (University of Pennsylvania)
Audience design affects classifier positioning in Chinese relative clauses: Evidence from spoken corpus and sentence-production data ▪ Yanan Sheng & Fuyun Wu (Shanghai International Studies University)
When a stone tries to climb up a slope: The influence of perceived and linguistically induced animacy on reference ▪ Jorrig Vogels, Emiel Krahmer, & Alfons Maes (Tilburg University)
Determinants of scanpath regularity in reading ▪ Titus von der Malsburg, Reinhold Kliegl, & Shravan Vasishth (University of Potsdam)
Optional to and prosody ▪ Thomas Wasow, Rebecca Greene (Stanford University), & Roger Levy (University of California, San Diego)
MEG evidence for distinct sub-operations within semantic composition ▪ Masha Westerlund & Liina Pylkkänen (New York University)
Familiarity and frequency disentangled: An eye-tracking corpus study with German texts ▪ Sascha Wolfer, Sandra Hansen, & Lars Konieczny (University of Freiburg)
Two stages of NPI licensing: An ERP study ▪ Ming Xiang, Anastasia Giannakidou, & Julian Grove (University of Chicago)