جایگاه گروه اسمی سنگین در زبان فارسی: شواهدی از شم ‌زبانی گویشوران بومی

• Alaei, M.; M. Tehrani Doost & M. Rasekh-Mahand (2017). “Constituent ordering in Persian under the influence of grammatical weight: A processing-based explanation”. Language Related Research. Pp. 1-29. [In Persian].
• Arnold, J. E.; T. Wasow; A. Losongco & R. Ginstrom (2000). “Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of complexity and information structure on constituent ordering”. Language. 76(1). Pp. 28–55.
• Bock, K. & R. Warren, (1985), “Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation”. Cognition. 21. Pp. 47-67.
• Bock, K. & W. Levelt, (1994), “Language Production: Grammatical Encoding”. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). New York: Academic Press.
• Bock, K. (1982). “Towards a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions to sentence formulation”. Psychological Review. 89.Pp. 1-47.
• Bod, R., Hay, J. & S. Jannedy, (2003), “Introduction”. In R. Bod, J. Hay, and S. Jannedy (Eds.) Probabilistic Linguistics (pp. 1-10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chang, F. (2009). “Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English”. Journal of Memory and Language, 61. Pp. 374-97.
• Choi, Hye-Won, (2007), “Length and order: A corpus study of Korean dative-accusative construction”. Discourse and Cognition, 14(3).Pp. 207–227.
• Chomsky, N. (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum press.
• Faghiri, P. & P. Samvelian (2014), “Constituent ordering in Persian and the weight factor”. In C. Pinon (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10 (EISS10), (pp. 215-232).
• Faghiri, P.; P. Samvelian & B. Hemforth (2014). “Accessibility and word order: The case of ditransitive constructions in Persian”. In C. Pinon (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10 (EISS10), (pp. 217-237).
• Frazier, L. & J. D. Fodor (1978). “The sausage machine: A two-stage parsing model”. Cognition, 6. Pp. 291-325.
• Garrett, F. (1980). “Levels of processing in sentence production”. Language Production 1. Pp. 177–220.
• Hawkins, J. (1994). A Performance Theory of order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hirsh-Pasek, K. & R. Golinkoff, (1996), The origins of Grammar: Evidence from Early Language Comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Karimi, S. (2003). “On scrambling in Persian”. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word order and Scrambling (pp. 301-324). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Kimball, J. (1973). “Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language”. Cognition 2. Pp. 15-47.
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Lotfi, A. & M. Moayedi, (2013), “Double object construction in the Persian literary texts”. Researches in Linguistics. 5(8). Pp. 101-119. [In Persian].
• Manning, C. (2003). “Probabilistic Syntax”. In R. Bod, J. Hay, and S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics (pp. 289-341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Marashi, M. (1970). The Persian Verb: A Partial Description for Pedagogical Purposes. Unpublished Phd Dissertation, The University of Texas- Austin.
• Mazurkewich, I. (1984). “The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory”. Language Learning 34(1). Pp. 91-109.
• Meyer, C. & H. Tao, (2005), “Response to Newmeyer's 'Grammar is grammar and usage is usage'”. Language. 81(1). Pp. 226-228.
• Mirdehghan, M. & S. Yusofi ,(2016). “Differential adpositional case marking in Vafsi within Optimality Theory”. Language Related Research. 7(3). Pp. 197-222. [In Persian].
• Moinzadeh, A. (2001). An Antisymmetric, Minimalist Approach to Persian Phrase Structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa- Canada.
• Newmeyer, F. (2003). “Grammar is grammar and usage is usage”. Language. 79.Pp.682-707.
• Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Rasekh-Mahand, M. & M. Ghiasvand (2013). “Motivating factors of postposing in Persian”. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 5(9). Pp. 27-47. [In Persian].
• Rasekh-Mahand, M. & M. Ghiasvand (2014). “A Corpus-based study of functional motivations effects on Persian scrambling”. Grammar. 10.Pp. 163-197. [In Persian].
• Rasekh-Mahand, M. (2004). "The position of direct object in Persian". The Journal of the Persian Academy, 6(4), pp. 55-66. [In Persian].
• Rasekh-Mahand, M.; M. Alizadeh Sahraie; R. Izadifar & M. Ghiasvand, (2012). “The functional explanation of relative clause extraposition in Persian”. Researches in Linguistics. 4(1). Pp. 21-40. [In Persian].
• Rebuschat, P. (2013). “Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research”. Language Learning. 63(3).Pp. 595-626.
• Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Unpublished Phd Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology- Massachusetts.
• Sheikholeslami, E. (2008). The Role of Information Structure in Relative Clause Extraposition in Persian (unpublished M.A Thesis). University of Kurdistan-Iran. [In Persian].
• Stallings, L. M.; M. C. MacDonald & P. G. O’seaghdha, (1998), “Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift”. Journal of Memory and Language. 39(3). Pp.392–417.
• Wasaw, T. & J. Arnold, (2003), “Post-verbal constituent ordering in English”. In B. Kortmann, and E. C. Traugott (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 119-154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Wasaw, T. (1997). “Remarks on grammatical weight”. Language Variation and Change. 9. Pp.81–105.
• Yamashita, H. & F. Chang, (2001), “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language”. Cognition. 81(2). Pp.45–B55.