Natural language processing involves a tight coupling between action (the production of language) and perception (the comprehension of language). We argue that similar theoretical principles apply to language processing as to action/perception in general. Language production is not driven solely by the speaker's intentions; language comprehension is not only input-driven; production and perception use common representations. We will relate recent findings from our language production lab to the Theory of Event Coding (TEC)'s principle of feature binding.

At the core of Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) theory is a monitor that uses forward models. I argue that this account is challenged by neuropsychological findings and visual world eye-tracking data and that it has two conceptual problems. I propose that conflict monitoring avoids these issues and should be considered a promising alternative to perceptual loop and forward modeling theories.

Caplan & Waters's neuropsychological evidence for two types of verbal working memory rests entirely on a very restricted definition of “syntactic complexity,” one in terms of word order. This opens the possibility that the dissociation they observe relates to the differential use of word-order strategies rather than to the structure of verbal working memory.

Grodzinsky's theory of agrammatic sentence processing fails to account for crucial empirical facts. In contrast to his predictions, the data show that there are (1) degrees of severity and (2) problems with sentences that do not require movement, and that (3) under the right task circumstances, full-fledged syntactic trees are constructed.