1. پورمحمد، م ( ۱۳۹۷). روانشناسی زبان، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها(سمت) پژوهشکده تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.
- پورمحمد، م (۱۳۹۶) زبانشناسی شناختی، درک : خرازی (گردآورنده)، مقدمه ای بر علوم و فناوریهای شناختی و کارکردهای آن (۱۳۳-۱۶۱) ؛ تهران: سمت.
2. دبیر مقدم، م. (۱۳۹۰). معرفی و نقد کتاب مطالعه ای در ساخت گفتمانی زبان فارسی. مجله دستور (ویژه نامه نامۀ فرهنگستان)، ۷، ۲۲۳-۲۹۳. دبیر مقدم، م. (۱۳۹۲) رده شناسی زبانهای ایرانی دو جلد چ ،۲ (۱۳۹۳) تهران سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت). رابینز، آر. اچ. (۱۳۷۰). تاریخ مختصر زبان شناسی (ع. م. حق شناس، مترجم). تهران: نشر مرکز.
3. تاریخ انتشار اثر اصلی (۱۹۶۷)
4. عاصی، م. و عبدعلی .م. (۱۳۷۵). واژگان گزیده زبان شناسی. تهران: شرکت انتشارات علمی و
5. فرهنگی
6. دبیرمقدم ، م . ( ۱۳۹۸) . زبان شناسی نظری ،پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی (ویراست سوم : با تجدید نظر اساسی). تهران : سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه ها ( سمت) .
7. Ambridge, B., & Goldberg, A. (2008). The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 349–381. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.014
8. Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000225
9. Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 23–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001
10. Boudewyn, M. A., Luck, S. J., Farrens, J. L., & Kappenman, E. S. (2018). How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? It depends. Psychophysiology, 55, e13049. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13049
11. Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, A. Akmajian, & T. Wasow (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–133). New York: Academic Press.
12. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
13. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Chow, W.-Y., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Eye-tracking evidence for active gap-filling regardless of dependency length. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(6), 1297–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818804988
15. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Cohen, M. X. (2017). Rigor and replication in time-frequency analyses of cognitive electrophysiology data. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 111, 80–87. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.02.001
17. Deane, P. (1991). Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1991.2.1.1
18. DeLong, K. A., Quante, L., & Kutas, M. (2014). Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 61, 150–162. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016
19. Federmeier, K. D., Mai, H., & Kutas, M. (2005). Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint. Memory & Cognition, 33, 871–886. doi:10.3758/BF03193082
20. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German Wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250–272. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00004-9
21. Fodor, J. D. (1989). Empty categories in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3-4), SI155–SI209
22. Jonathan R. Folstein, Cyma Van Petten Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 Psychophysiology, 2008 Jan;45(1):152-70.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.x. Epub 2007 Sep 10.
23. Frazier, L., & Flores D’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.
24. Friederici, A. D. (1998). The neurobiology of language processing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 263–301). Berlin: Springer.
25. Friederici, A. D., & Frazier, L. (1992). Thematic analysis in agrammatic comprehension: Syntactic structures and task demands. Brain and Language, 42, 1–29.
26. Friederici, A. D., & Gorrell, P. (1998). Structural prominence and agrammatic theta-role assignment: A reconsideration of linear strategies. Brain and Language, 65, 253–275.
27. Friederici, A. D., & Graetz, P. (1987). Processing passive sentences in aphasia: Deficits and strategies. Brain and Language, 30, 93–105.
28. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219–1248.
29. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 94–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 313–353. doi:10.1515/cogl.2005.16.2.313
31. 22.Talmy Givón, Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1984. Pp. xx + 464.
32. Goldsmith, J. A. (1985). A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS), 21, 133–143.
33. Gouvea, A., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D. (2009).
34. Guo, Q., Thabane, L., Hall, G., McKinnon, M., Goeree, R., & Pullenayegum, E. (2014). A systematic review of the reporting of sample size calculations and corresponding data components in observational functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. NeuroImage, 86, 172–181. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.012
35. Hagiwara, M., Ogawa, Y., & Toyama, L. (2007). Effectiveness of indirect dependency for automatic synonym acquisition. Contextual Information in Semantic Space Models. Roskilde, Denmark.
36. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–483. doi:10.1080/01690969308407585
37. Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints on syntactic islands. Language, 86(2), 366–415. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0223
38. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (200
39. 0). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386084
40. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–159.
41. Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In P. Culicover & L. McNally (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 29: The limits of syntax (pp. 241–279). New York: Academic Press.
42. Kluender, R. (2004). The P600 in a passive paradigm. Cognitive Neuroscience Society Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
43. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.
44. Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Brouwer, H. (2006). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–637.
45. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
46. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205. doi:10.1126/science.7350657
47. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. doi:10.1038/307161a0
48. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1989). An electrophysiological probe of incidental semantic association. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 38–49.
49. Kutas, M., & King, J. W. (1996). Is N400 a neural correlate of language comprehension? In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 339–361). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50. Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1988). Event-related brain potential studies of language. Advances in Psychophysiology, 3, 139–187.
51. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218–233.
52. Kuznetsova, A., & Hendriks, P. (2001). Influence of first language word order on second language sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1337–1351.
53. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2835
54. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3
55. McCarthy, G., Nobre, A. C., Bentin, S., & Spencer, D. D. (1995). Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe: I. Intracranial distribution and neural generators. Journal of Neuroscience, 15(2), 1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-02-01080.1995
56. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.
57. Meyer, A. M., Mack, J. E., Kluender, R., & Gibson, E. (2012). Dependency resolution in reading: Effects of frequency and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026342
58. Münte, T. F., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 318–329.
59. Nicol, J., Forster, K., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587.
60. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 151–175.
61. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413–437.
62. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 637–679.
63. Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.
64. Osterhout, L., & Swinney, D. A. (1993). On the temporal course of gap-filling during comprehension of verbal passives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 273–286.
65. Osterhout, L., & Nicol, J. (1999). On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 283–317.
66. Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Kim, A. (2006). Green giant versus giant green: An electrophysiological study of conceptual categorization. Psychological Science, 17, 635–641.
67. Perrin, F., Pernier, J., Bertrand
68. , O., & Echallier, J. F. (1989). Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 72(2), 184–187.
69. Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: Lexical information and verb-argument assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1401–1419.
70. Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2003). Evidence against the use of sublexical phonological representations during unbounded dependency processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 919–928.
71. Prather, P., Zurif, E., Stern, C., & Rosen, T. J. (1992). Slowed lexical access in nonfluent aphasia: A case study. Brain and Language, 43, 336–348.
72. Prather, P., & Zurif, E. (1992). A psycholinguistic investigation of the underlying nature of verb-argument structure processing: Evidence from agrammatic aphasic errors. Brain and Language, 42, 376–416.
73. Radeau, M., Besson, M., Fonteneau, E., & Castro, S. L. (1998). Semantic, repetition and rime priming between spoken words: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 49, 197–218.
74. Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348–379.
75. Roland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 87–109.
76. Roland, D., Jurafsky, D., & Dang, H. T. (2013). Recurrent neural network grammars. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 161–171). Association for Computational Linguistics.
77. Rösler, F., & Friederici, A. D. (1998). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 191–196.
78. Santi, A., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2007). Working memory and syntax interact in Broca's area. NeuroImage, 37, 8–17.
79. Stromswold, K. (1996). The cognitive neuroscience of language acquisition. Language, 72, 273–311.
80. Swinney, D. A., & Osterhout, L. (1990). Inference generation during auditory language comprehension. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 1–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81. Swinney, D. A., Onifer, W., Prather, P., & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 159–165.
82. Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1989). Comprehension of deep and surface verb-phrase structures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3–4), 211–248.
83. Thornhill, D. E., & Van Petten, C. (2012). Lexical versus conceptual anticipation during sentence processing: Frontal positivity and N400 ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.11.008
84. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.
85. Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(6), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80018-9
86. Tyler, L. K., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Warren, P. (1992). The psychological refractory period and the temporal control of behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 783–825.
87. Tyler, L. K., & Wessels, J. (1983). Is surface dyslexia a stem-specific disorder? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 1–37.
88. Tyler, L. K., Wessels, J., & Reggia, J. A. (1983). The effect of relative clause length on the processing of complex English sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 22(3), 284–299.
89. Vainio, S., & Hyönä, J. (2019). Morphological processing as revealed by event-related potentials. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 100, 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.017
90. Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2010). The brain is a prediction machine that cares about good and bad – and even better and worse. Commentary on Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.05.003
91. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443–467.
92. Van Petten, C. (1995). Words and sentences: Event-related brain potential measures. Psychophysiology, 32, 511–525.
93. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380–393.
94. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19, 95–112.
95. Van Petten, C., Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Mitchiner, M., & McIsaac, H.
96. K. (1991). Fractionating the word repetition effect with event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 131–150.
97. Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2006). Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language, 97, 279–293.
98. Warren, P., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Continuous uptake of acoustic cues in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 41(4), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208285
99. Zurif, E., & Swinney, D. A. (1993). The psychological reality of island constraints. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 748–749.
100. 8. Dabirmoghaddam, M. (2020). Theoretical Linguistics, Emergence, and Evolution of Generative Syntax (3rd ed.). Tehran: SAMT.
Language Related Research