Syntactic ambiguity and ambiguity avoidance in language comprehension and production

References

1. Andersen, Henning
   2001 Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress, ed. byHenning Andersen, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.219.11and
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.219.11and [Google Scholar]
2. Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Ash Asudeh & Peter Alrenga
   2004 Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory & Language:.–. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.006
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.006 [Google Scholar]
3. Audring, Jenny & Geert Booij
   2016 Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics:.–. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0012
   https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0012 [Google Scholar]
4. Bell, Allan
   1984 Language style as audience design. Language in Society:.–. 10.1017/S004740450001037X
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
5. Bergen, Leon, Roger Levy & Edward Gibson
   2012 Verb omission errors: Evidence of rational processing of noisy language inputs. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bock, J. Kathryn
   1986 Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology:.–. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
7. Bock, J. Kathryn
   1995 Sentence production: From mouth to mind. Handbook of Perception and Cognition (Vol. 11), ed. byJ. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas, –. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bock, J. Kathryn, & Carol A. Miller
   1991 Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology:–. 10.1016/0010‑0285(91)90003‑7
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7 [Google Scholar]
9. Bond, Zinny
   1999 Slips of the Ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004653412
   https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004653412 [Google Scholar]
10. Bosch, Sina, Ilaria De Cesare, Claudia Felser & Ulrike Demske
    2022 A multi-methodological approach to word order variation in German infinitival complementation. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2020: Linguistic Theory Enriched by Experimental Data, ed. byR. Hörnig, S. von Wietersheim, A. Konietzko & S. Featherston, –. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bosch, Sina, Ilaria De Cesare, Ulrike Demske & Claudia Felser
    2023 Word order variation in German infinitival complementation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. 10.1007/s10828‑023‑09140‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-023-09140-8 [Google Scholar]
12. Boudewyn, Megan A., Megan Zirnstein, Tamara Y. Swaab & Matthew J. Traxler
    2014 Priming prepositional phrase attachment: Evidence from eye-tracking and event-related potentials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:–. 10.1080/17470218.2013.815237
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.815237 [Google Scholar]
13. Branigan, Holly P.
    2007 Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass:–. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2006.00001.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2006.00001.x [Google Scholar]
14. Bucaria, Chiara
    2004 Lexical and syntactic ambiguity as a source of humor: The case of newspaper headlines. Humor:.–. 10.1515/humr.2004.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.013 [Google Scholar]
15. Carreiras, Manuel & Charles Clifton
    1993 Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech:–. 10.1177/002383099303600401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099303600401 [Google Scholar]
16. Chang, Franklin, Gary S. Dell, Kathryn Bock & Zenzi M. Griffin
    2000 Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research:.–. 10.1023/A:1005101313330
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005101313330 [Google Scholar]
17. Chen, Rong & Fengguang Liu
    2024 Deliberate ambiguity as motivated strategy. Language & Communication:–. 10.1016/j.langcom.2023.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2023.11.003 [Google Scholar]
18. Christianson, Kiel
    2016 When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:.–. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603 [Google Scholar]
19. Cuetos, Fernando, Donald Mitchell & Martin Corley
    1996 Parsing in different languages. Language Processing in Spanish, ed. byM. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles, –. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Dahan, Delphine
    2015 Prosody and language comprehension. WIREs Cogn Sci, :–. 10.1002/wcs.1355
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1355 [Google Scholar]
21. De Cesare, Ilaria
    2021 Word order variability and change in German infinitival complements. A multi-causal approach. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam Phd dissertation.
22. De Cesare, Ilaria
    2024 „Ich werde sie versuchen zu erklären“: Die dritte Konstruktion im Deutschen aus der Sicht der Sprachproduktion. Deutsche Sprache(), –. 10.37307/j.1868‑775X.2024.02.02
    https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-775X.2024.02.02 [Google Scholar]
23. De Cesare, Ilaria, Sina Bosch, Claudia Felser & Ulrike Demske
    2025 Word order change in German infinitival complementation: the role of processing-related factors. Diachronica:.–. 10.1075/dia.22037.dec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22037.dec [Google Scholar]
24. De Smet, Hendrik
    2009 Analysing reanalysis. Lingua:–. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
25. De Smet, Hendrik & Marie-Anne Markey
    2021 The spark or the fuel? On the role of ambiguity in language change. Journal of Historical Syntax:–.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Dempsey, Jack, Qiawen Liu & Kiel Christianson
    2024 Syntactic adaptation leads to updated knowledge for local structural frequencies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:.–. 10.1177/17470218231172908
    https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231172908 [Google Scholar]
27. Denison, David
    2006 Category change and gradience in the determiner system. The Handbook of the History of English, ed. byA. van Kemenade & B. Los, –. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757048.ch12
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch12 [Google Scholar]
28. Denison, David
    2010 Category change in English with and without structural change. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), ed. byElizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale, –. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.07den
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.07den [Google Scholar]
29. Denison, David
    2017 Ambiguity and vagueness in historical change. The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic perspectives, ed. byM. Hundt, S. Mollin & S. Pfenninger, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316091746.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.013 [Google Scholar]
30. Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit
    2002 Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft:–. 10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151 [Google Scholar]
31. Felser, Claudia
    2017 Syntactic ambiguity in real-time language processing and diachronic change. The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic perspectives, ed, byM. Hundt, S. Mollin & S. Pfenninger, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316091746.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.012 [Google Scholar]
32. Felser, Claudia & Sina Bosch
    2024 Processing factors constrain word order variation in German: The trouble with third constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics:.–. 10.1017/S1470542723000107
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542723000107 [Google Scholar]
33. Ferreira, Fernanda
    2003 The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology:.–. 10.1016/S0010‑0285(03)00005‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7 [Google Scholar]
34. Ferreira, Fernanda & Benjamin Swets
    2002 How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language:–. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2797
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2797 [Google Scholar]
35. Ferreira, Fernanda & Nikole D. Patson
    2007 The ‘good enough’ approach to language Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass–.–. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00007.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x [Google Scholar]
36. Ferreira, Victor S.
    2008 Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory:–. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(08)00006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00006-6 [Google Scholar]
37. Ferreira, Victor S.
    2019 A mechanistic framework for explaining audience design in language production. Annual Review of Psychology:–. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑122216‑011653
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011653 [Google Scholar]
38. Ferreira, Victor S. & Gary S. Dell
    2000 Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology:–. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730 [Google Scholar]
39. Ferreira, Victor S. & Melanie Hudson
    2011 Saying “that” in dialogue: the influence of accessibility and social factors on syntactic production. Language and Cognitive Processes:–. 10.1080/01690965.2010.537482
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.537482 [Google Scholar]
40. Fine, Alex B., T. Florian Jaeger, Thomas A. Farmer & Ting Qian
    2013 Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE(): e77661. 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661 [Google Scholar]
41. Fischer, Olga
    1988 The rise of the for NP to V construction: An explanation. An Historic Tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang, ed. ByG. Nixon & J. Honey, –. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Frances, Candice
    2024 Good enough processing: what have we learned in the 20 years since Ferreira et al. (2002)?Frontiers in Psychology:. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323700
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323700 [Google Scholar]
43. Frazier, Lyn & Keith Rayner
    1982 Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology:–. 10.1016/0010‑0285(82)90008‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1 [Google Scholar]
44. Fukumura, Kumiko, Céline Pozniak & F.-Xavier Alario
    2022 Avoiding gender ambiguous pronouns in French. Cognition:. 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104909
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104909 [Google Scholar]
45. Gambi, Chiara & Martin J. Pickering
    2017 Models linking production and comprehension. The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. byE. M. Fernández & H. S. Cairns, –. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118829516.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch7 [Google Scholar]
46. Garrett, Merrill. F.
    (2000) Remarks on the architecture of language processing systems. Language and Brain, ed. byY. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro & D. Swinney, –. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑012304260‑6/50004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012304260-6/50004-9 [Google Scholar]
47. Gernsbacher, Morton A.
    1990 Language Comprehension As Structure Building. New York: Psychology Press. 10.21236/ADA221854
    https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA221854 [Google Scholar]
48. Gibson, Edward, Leon Bergen & Steven T. Piantadosi
    2013 Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:.–. 10.1073/pnas.1216438110
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216438110 [Google Scholar]
49. Goldberg, Adele E. & Fernanda Ferreira
    2022 Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences:.–. 10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005 [Google Scholar]
50. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts, ed.P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, –. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
51. Haider, Hubert
    1994 Fakultativ kohärente Infinitive. Zur Satzwertigkeit von Infinitiven und Small Clauses, ed. byAnita Steube & Gerhild Zybatow, –. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111353265.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111353265.75 [Google Scholar]
52. Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell
    1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
53. Hawkins, John A.
    2012 The drift of English towards invariable word order from a typological and Germanic perspective. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, ed. byTerttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0053
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0053 [Google Scholar]
54. Haywood, Sarah L., Martin J. Pickering & Holly P. Branigan
    2005 Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?Psychological Science:–. 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2005.01541.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01541.x [Google Scholar]
55. Hörberg, Thomas
    2018 Functional motivations behind direct object fronting in written Swedish: A corpus-distributional account. Glossa:. –. 10.5334/gjgl.502
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.502 [Google Scholar]
56. Holmes, Virginia M.
    1988 Hesitations and sentence planning. Cognition:–.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Horton, William S. & Boaz Keysar
    1996 When do speakers take into account common ground?Cognition:.–. 10.1016/0010‑0277(96)81418‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 [Google Scholar]
58. Huettig, Falk
    2015 Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research:–. 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014 [Google Scholar]
59. Hwang, Heeju
    2021 Avoidance of gender-ambiguous pronouns as a consequence of ambiguity-avoidance strategy. Discourse Processes:.–. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1844965
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1844965 [Google Scholar]
60. Jäger, Gerhard & Annette Rosenbach
    2008 Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics:.–. 10.1515/THLI.2008.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
61. Kaan, Edith & Eunjin Chun
    2018 Syntactic adaptation. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Current topics in language, ed. byK. D. Federmeier & D. G. Watson, –. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Kurumada, Chigusa & T. Florian Jaeger
    2015 Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language:–. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar]
63. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1977 Syntactic reanalysis. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. byCharles N. Li, –. Austin: University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑005
    https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-005 [Google Scholar]
64. Lee, Eun-Kyung, Sarah Brown-Schmidt & Duane G. Watson
    2013 Ways of looking ahead: Hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition:–. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.007 [Google Scholar]
65. Lee, Hanjung
    2006 Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics:.–. 10.1007/s10831‑005‑3004‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-005-3004-1 [Google Scholar]
66. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
67. Levy, Roger
    2008 A noisy-channel model of human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, –, Honolulu, Hawaii. Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1613715.1613749
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1613715.1613749 [Google Scholar]
68. Lewis, Richard & Shravan Vasishth
    2005 An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science:.–. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25 [Google Scholar]
69. Loebell, Helga & Kathryn Bock
    2003 Structural priming across languages. Linguistics:.–. 10.1515/ling.2003.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.026 [Google Scholar]
70. MacDonald, Maryellen C.
    2013 How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology:. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226 [Google Scholar]
71. MacDonald, Maryellen C., Neil J. Pearlmutter & Mark S. Seidenberg
    1994 The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review:.–. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.4.676
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676 [Google Scholar]
72. Magni, Elisabetta
    2024 The role of ambiguity and vagueness in language change. Vagueness, Ambiguity, and their Relationship: Theory, methods, uses, ed. byIlaria Fiorentini & Chiara Zanchi, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.347.02mag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.347.02mag [Google Scholar]
73. McRae, Ken & Katsunaga Matsuki
    2013 Constraint-based models of sentence processing. Sentence Processing, ed. byR. P. G. van Gompel, –. London: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
74. Meyer, Antje S.
    1996 Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture-word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language:–. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0026
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0026 [Google Scholar]
75. Michaelis, Laura A.
    2004 Type shifting in construction grammar. An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics:–. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
76. Mitchell, Donald & Fernando Cuetos
    1991 The origins of parsing strategies. Current Issues in Natural Language Processing, ed. byC. Smith, –. Center for Cognitive Science, University of Austin, TX.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Momma, Shota
    2021 Filling the gap in gap-filling: Long-distance dependency formation in sentence production. Cognitive Psychology:. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101411
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101411 [Google Scholar]
78. Morgan, Adam M. & Victor S. Ferreira
    2022 Still no evidence for audience design in syntax: Resumptive pronouns are not the exception. Journal of Memory and Language:. 10.1016/j.jml.2022.104368
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104368 [Google Scholar]
79. Nambu, Satoshi, David Y. Oshima & Shin-ichiro Sano
    2022 The nominative-to-accusative shift in Japanese: diachronic and synchronic considerations. Journal of Japanese Linguistics:.–. 10.1515/jjl‑2022‑2057
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-2022-2057 [Google Scholar]
80. Newmeyer, Frederick
    (2003) Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language:.–. 10.1353/lan.2003.0260
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0260 [Google Scholar]
81. Norcliffe, Elisabeth & T. Florian Jaeger
    2016 Predicting head-marking variability in Yucatec Maya relative clause production. Language and Cognition:.–. 10.1017/langcog.2014.39
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.39 [Google Scholar]
82. Oaks, Dallin D.
    1994 Creating structural ambiguities in humor: getting English grammar to cooperate. Humor:.–. 10.1515/humr.1994.7.4.377
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1994.7.4.377 [Google Scholar]
83. Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson
    2012 The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition:.–. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
84. Pickering, Martin J. & Chiara Gambi
    2018 Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin:.–. 10.1037/bul0000158
    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158 [Google Scholar]
85. Pickering, Martin J. & Simon Garrod
    2013 An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences:.–. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495 [Google Scholar]
86. Pickering, Martin J. & Simon Garrod
    2017 Priming and language change. The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic perspectives, ed. byM. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. E. Pfenninger, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316091746.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.008 [Google Scholar]
87. Pickering, Martin J., Janet F. McLean & Holly P. Branigan
    2013 Persistent structural priming and frequency effects during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition:–.
    [Google Scholar]
88. Pickering, Martin J. & Matthew Traxler
    1998 Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition:.–.
    [Google Scholar]
89. Pratt, Elizabeth
    2017 Prosody in sentence processing. The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. byE. M. Fernández & H. S. Cairns, –\. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118829516.ch16
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch16 [Google Scholar]
90. Rohdenburg, Günter
    2021 Ambiguity avoidance by means of function words in English? Providing additional corpus-based counterevidence. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik:.–. 10.1515/zaa‑2021‑2022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2021-2022 [Google Scholar]
91. Schafer, Amy J., Shari R. Speer, Paul Warren & S. David White
    2000 Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research:–. 10.1023/A:1005192911512
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005192911512 [Google Scholar]
92. Temperley, David
    2003 Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language:–. 10.1353/lan.2003.0189
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0189 [Google Scholar]
93. Traugott, Elizabeth & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
94. Traugott, Elizabeth
    2012 On the persistence of ambiguous linguistic contexts over time: Implications for corpus research on micro-changes. Language and Computers:–. 10.1163/9789401207713_019
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401207713_019 [Google Scholar]
95. Vigliocco, Gabriela & Robert J. Hartsuiker
    2002 The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin:.–. 10.1037/0033‑2909.128.3.442
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.442 [Google Scholar]
96. Walkden, George
    2021 Against mechanisms: towards a minimal theory of change. Journal of Historical Syntax:.–.
    [Google Scholar]
97. Waltereit, Richard
    1999 Reanalyse als metonymischer Prozeß. Reanalyse und Grammatikalisierung in den romanischen Sprachen, ed. byJürgen Lang & Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh, –. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110924824‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924824-003 [Google Scholar]
98. Wasow, Thomas
    2015 Ambiguity avoidance is overrated. Ambiguity: language and communication, ed. byS. Winkler, –. Berlin, München, Boston: DeGruyter. 10.1515/9783110403589‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110403589-003 [Google Scholar]
99. Wasow, Thomas, Amy Perfors & David Beaver
    2005 The puzzle of ambiguity. Morphology and The Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe, ed. byO. Orgun & P. Sells, –. Chicago: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
100. Winter-Froemel, Esme
     2021 Reinvestigating ambiguity and frequency in reanalysis: A two-step methodology for corpus-linguistic analyses based on bridging use exposure. Journal of Historical Syntax:–.
     [Google Scholar]
101. Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika
     2001 Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
102. Yano, Masataka, Shugo Suwazono, Hiroaki Arao, Daichi Yasunaga & Hiroaki Oishi
     2021 Selective adaptation in sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:.–. 10.1177/1747021820984623
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820984623 [Google Scholar]
103. Zehentner, Eva
     2022 Ambiguity avoidance as a factor in the rise of the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics:.–. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0018 [Google Scholar]