The basic accomplishment of sentence processing research in the 1960s and 70s was to establish that perceivers assign structural representa- tions to sentences (Fodor et al., 1974) and they do so systematically using the formation rules of the grammar (Forster, 1979). This may sound like a singularly unimpressive accomplishment to a contem- porary linguist - mere proof of the obvious. But one must recall the extremely impoverished view of language and language processing prevalent in the U.S. in the 1950s. Processing mechanisms were thought to consist of slightly elaborated stimulus-response associations, and sentences were viewed as mere strings of concatenated words. On this view, understanding language comprehension was naturally equated with knowing how words and associations between them were learned. Consequently, language pro- cessing was investigated by performing a seemingly endless series of tedious paired associate learning studies. The shift in the 1960s to a view of sentences emphasizing hierarchically organized structures con- taining grammatical depencies between widely separated items was thus dramatic.

Recent studies in psycho linguistics have ranged through a variety of languages. In this trend, which has no precedent, studies in language processing have followed studies in language acquisition and theoretical linguistics in considering language universals in a broader scope than only in English. Since the beginning of the century, studies in language acquisition have produced a vast body of data from a number of Indoeuropean languages, and the emphasis on the universal has preceded the emphasis on the particular (see (Slobin 1985) for a review). Nowadays, the research in the field advances by means of a continuous linking between the cross-linguistic uniformities and the individual language influences on development. The level of language universals is continuously refined as the data from a number of languages contribute to the elaboration of a more distinctive picture of the language of children. The first cross-linguistic studies in theoretical linguistics appeared at the end of the seventies. Within the Chomskian paradigm, the reference to the Romance languages caused a shift from a rule-based toward a principle-based formalism (Chomsky 1981, 1995); within alternative theories, the reduced prominence of the pure phrase structure component in favor of the lexicon and/or the functional relations (see, e.g., Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan 1982), Relational Grammar (Perlmutter 1983)) sought empirical support in languages exhibiting deep structural differences with respect to English (e.g. Bantu, Malayalam, Romance and Slavic languages Warlpiri). The M. De Vincenzi and V. Lombardo (eds.), Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing, 1-19.

Recent studies in psycho linguistics have ranged through a variety of languages. In this trend, which has no precedent, studies in language processing have followed studies in language acquisition and theoretical linguistics in considering language universals in a broader scope than only in English. Since the beginning of the century, studies in language acquisition have produced a vast body of data from a number of Indoeuropean languages, and the emphasis on the universal has preceded the emphasis on the particular (see (Slobin 1985) for a review). Nowadays, the research in the field advances by means of a continuous linking between the cross-linguistic uniformities and the individual language influences on development. The level of language universals is continuously refined as the data from a number of languages contribute to the elaboration of a more distinctive picture of the language of children. The first cross-linguistic studies in theoretical linguistics appeared at the end of the seventies. Within the Chomskian paradigm, the reference to the Romance languages caused a shift from a rule-based toward a principle-based formalism (Chomsky 1981, 1995); within alternative theories, the reduced prominence of the pure phrase structure component in favor of the lexicon and/or the functional relations (see, e.g., Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan 1982), Relational Grammar (Perlmutter 1983)) sought empirical support in languages exhibiting deep structural differences with respect to English (e.g. Bantu, Malayalam, Romance and Slavic languages Warlpiri). The M. De Vincenzi and V. Lombardo (eds.), Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing, 1-19.

The basic accomplishment of sentence processing research in the 1960s and 70s was to establish that perceivers assign structural representa- tions to sentences (Fodor et al., 1974) and they do so systematically using the formation rules of the grammar (Forster, 1979). This may sound like a singularly unimpressive accomplishment to a contem- porary linguist - mere proof of the obvious. But one must recall the extremely impoverished view of language and language processing prevalent in the U.S. in the 1950s. Processing mechanisms were thought to consist of slightly elaborated stimulus-response associations, and sentences were viewed as mere strings of concatenated words. On this view, understanding language comprehension was naturally equated with knowing how words and associations between them were learned. Consequently, language pro- cessing was investigated by performing a seemingly endless series of tedious paired associate learning studies. The shift in the 1960s to a view of sentences emphasizing hierarchically organized structures con- taining grammatical depencies between widely separated items was thus dramatic.