Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1304-1321

  Gordon, Peter C ^a,b   Hendrick, Randall ^a   Johnson, Marcus ^a,b   Lee, Yoonhyoung ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Eye tracking; Interference; Language; Memory; Parsing

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; READING; REVIEW; SEMANTICS; SHORT TERM MEMORY;

ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 33750712783     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1304     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2005, March-April). A role for phonological information in relative clause processing. Poster session presented at the 18th Annual City University of New York Conference on Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.
2. Bever, T. G. (1974). The ascent of the specious, or there's a lot we don't know about mirrors. In D. Cohen (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena (pp. 173-200). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
3. Calvo, M. O. (2001). Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading. Memory, 9, 365-381.
4. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77-94.
5. Fox, B., & S. A. Thompson. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation, language, 66, 293-316.
6. Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E. A. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 39-68.
7. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
8. Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. 1). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
9. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (2005). Relativization, ergativity, and corpus frequency. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 456-463.
10. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1411-1.423.
11. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114.
12. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425-430.
13. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1.998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
14. Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive process. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29-54). New York: Elsevier.
15. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 98, 122-149.
16. Just, M. A., & Varma, S. (2002). A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review, 109, 55-65.
17. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
18. King, J., & Just, M A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
19. Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93-115.
20. Lewis, R. L. (1999). Specifying architectures for language processing: Process, control, and memory in parsing and interpretation. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton Jr. (Eds), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 56-89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
21. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55-75). New York: Elsevier.
22. MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language, 53, 152-168.
23. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and language, 47, 50-68.
24. Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In D. R. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 419-492). New York: Wiley.
25. Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447-475.
26. Prince, F. E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York: Academic-Press.
27. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
28. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye movement control in reading. In M. Traxler & M. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 609-653). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.
29. Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290-1301.
30. Sturt, P., & Lombardo, V. (2005). Processing coordinated structures: Incrementality and connectedness. Cognitive Scirence, 29, 291-305.
31. Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69-90.
32. Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 157-166.
33. Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119-160). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.
35. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2005). Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 751-767.