Intersentential syntactic context effects on comprehension: The role of working memory

Cognitive Brain Research

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 111-122

  Vos, Sandra H ^a,b   Friederici, Angela D ^c  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

ERP; Language; Syntax; Working memory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORKING MEMORY;

ADULT; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE TESTS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; READING; SEMANTICS; VERBAL LEARNING;

EID: 0037362991     PISSN: 09266410     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00226-4     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Altmann G.T.M., Garnham A., Henstra J.A. Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism. J. Experim. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20:1994;209-216.
2. Altmann G.T.M., Steedman M. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition. 30:1988;191-238.
3. Britt M.A., Perfetti C.A., Garrod S., Rayner K. Parsing in discourse: context effects and their limits. J. Mem. Lang. 31:1992;293-314.
4. Britt M.A. The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. J. Mem. Lang. 33:1994;251-284.
5. Clifton C., Ferreira F. Ambiguity in context. Lang. Cogn. Proc. 4:1989;77-103.
6. Daneman M., Carpenter P.A. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 19:1980;450-466.
7. Daneman M., Merikle P.M. Working memory and language comprehension: a meta-analysis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 3:1996;422-433.
8. DeVincenzi M. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. 1991;Kluwer, Dordrecht.
9. Ferreira F., Clifton C. The independence of syntactic processing. J. Mem. Lang. 25:1986;348-368.
10. Fodor J.A. The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. 1983;MIT Press, Cambridge, CA, USA.
11. Frazier L. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. 1978;University of Connecticut. Doctoral Dissertation.
12. Frazier L. Syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Natural Lang. Ling. Theory. 5:1987;519-560.
13. Friederici A.D. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: a model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain Lang. 50:1994;259-281.
14. Friederici A.D. Diagnosis and reanalysis: two processing aspects the brain may differentiate. Fodor J., Ferreira F. Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. 1998;177-200 Kluwer, Dordrecht.
15. Friederici A.D., Mecklinger A. Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: first-pass and second-pass parsing processes. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 25:1996;157-176.
16. Friederici A.D., Steinhauer K., Mecklinger A., Meyer M. Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biol. Psychol. 47:1998;193-221.
17. Friederici A.D., Mecklinger A., Spencer K.M., Steinhauer K., Donchin E. Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cogn. Brain Res. 11:2001;305-323.
18. Gorrell P. Syntax and Parsing. 1995;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. Greenhouse S.W., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrica. 24:1959;95-112.
20. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychol. Rev. 99:1992;122-149.
21. Kutas M., King J.W. The potentials for basic sentence processing: differentiating integrative processes. Inui T., McClelland J.L. Attention and Performance XVI: Information Integration in Perception and Communication. 1996;501-546 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
22. MacDonald M.A., Perlmutter N.J., Seidenberg M.S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychol. Rev. 101:1994;676-703.
23. MacDonald M.C., Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognit. Psychol. 24:1992;56-98.
24. Marslen-Wilson W.D., Tyler L.K. Against modularity. Garfield J.L. Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Understanding. 1987;37-62 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
25. McClelland J.L. Stochastic interactive processes and the effects of context upon perception. Cognit. Psychol. 23:1991;1-44.
26. Mecklinger A., Schriefers H., Steinhauer K., Friederici A.D. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: an analysis with event-related potentials. Mem. Cogn. 23:1995;477-494.
27. Mitchell D.C., Corley M.M.B., Garnham A. Effects of context in human sentence parsing: evidence against a discourse based proposal mechanism. J. Experim. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18:1992;69-88.
28. Murray W.S., Liversedge S.P. Referential context effects on syntactic processing. Clifton C., Frazier L., Rayner K. Perspectives on Sentence Processing. 1994;Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
29. Ni W., Crain S., Shankweiler D. Sidestepping garden paths: assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Lang. Cognit. Process. 11:1996;283-334.
30. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9:1971;97-113.
31. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J., Swinney D.A. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. J. Experim. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20:1994;786-803.
32. Rayner K., Garrod S., Perfetti C.A. Discourse influences during parsing are delayed. Cognition. 45:1992;109-139.
33. Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Tanenhaus M.K. Referential context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Clifton C., Frazier L., Rayner K. Perspectives on Sentence Processing. 1994;Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
34. Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K. Context and syntactic ambiguity resolution: discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Can. J. Experim. Psychol. 47:1993;276-309.
35. Steedman M., Altmann G.T.M. Ambiguity in context: a reply. Lang. Cogn. Process. 4:1989;105-122. SI.
36. Steinhauer K., Mecklinger A., Friederici A.D., Meyer M. Wahrscheinlichkeit und Strategie. Zeitschr. Experim. Psychol. 2:1997;305-331.
37. Vos S.H., Gunter T.C., Schriefers H., Friederici A.D. Syntactic parsing and working memory: the effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load. Lang. Cognit. Process. 16:2001;65-103.
38. Waters G.S., Caplan D. The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychol. Rev. 4:1996;761-772.
39. Waters G.S., Caplan D. Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Mem. Cogn. 24:1996;342-355.
40. Waters G.S., Caplan D. The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quart. J. Experim. Psychol. 1:1996;51-79.