The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 136, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 64-81

  Swets, Benjamin ^a,c   Desmet, Timothy ^b   Hambrick, David Z ^a   Ferreira, Fernanda ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Domain specificity; Implicit prosody; Psychometric; Relative clause attachment preferences; Working memory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; PSYCHOMETRY; READING;

COGNITION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; PSYCHOMETRICS; READING;

EID: 33847689289     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Abney, S. P., & Johnson, M. (1991). Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 233-250.
2. Altmann, G. T. M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
3. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. London: Oxford University Press.
4. Daddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.
5. Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics: Vol. 21. Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1-46). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
6. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentences parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49(A), 664-695.
7. Burgess, P. W. (1997). Theory and methodology in executive function research. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp. 81-116). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
8. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (2002). Working memory and connectionist models of parsing: A response to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review, 109, 66-74.
9. Carlson, K., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and language, 45, 58-81.
10. Chen, E., Gibson, E., & Wolf, F. (2005). Online syntactic storage costs in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 144-169.
11. Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. A. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luee, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 269-321). New York:Wiley.
12. Christiansen, M. H., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). Fractionating linguistic working memory: Even in pebbles, it's still a soupstone. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 97-98.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral, sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observations in linear regression. Technometrics, 19, 133-169.
15. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
16. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
17. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
18. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal framing and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
19. Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & De Baecke, C. (2002). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 55(A), 879-896.
20. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch. Memory & Cognition, 30, 150-157.
21. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Vonk, W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 453-485.
22. Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal, of Memory and Language, 54, 610-632.
23. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguislic Research, 22, 186-206.
24. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309-331.
25. Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H., & Kemtes, K. A. (2005). Sentence processing in context: The impact of experience on individual differences. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CD-ROM). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Federenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2006). The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 541-553.
27. Felser, C., Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children's processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 11, 127-163.
28. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.
29. Fodor, J. D. (2002, April). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference. Available from http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/sp2002/papers.htm
30. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
32. Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In L. J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 291-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
35. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
36. Gaulin. C., & Campbell, T. (1994). Procedure for assessing verbal working memory in normal school age children: Some preliminary evidence. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 79, 55-64.
37. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
38. Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitation and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
39. Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Watson, D., Grodner, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 313-353.
40. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
41. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preference in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
42. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425-430.
43. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261-290.
44. Hakuta, K. (1981). Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese. Cognition, 9, 197-236.
45. Igoa, J. M., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. (1998). A study on late closure in Spanish: Principle-grounded versus frequency-based accounts of attachment preferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 51(A), 561-592.
46. Jun, S. (2003). Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 219-249.
47. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
48. Just, M. A., & Varma, S. (2002). A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review, 109, 55-65.
49. Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189-217.
50. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
51. King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
52. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
53. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
54. Lewis, R. L. (1993). An architecturally-based theory of human sentence comprehension [Doctoral thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA]. Available from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rickl/Documents/thesis.pdf
55. 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.
56. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35-54.
57. MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.
58. MacWhinney, B. (1987). Toward a psycholinguistically plausible parser. In S. Thomason (Ed.), ESCOL 1986 (pp. 1-8). Columbus: Ohio State University.
59. Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds,), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 269-321). New York: Wiley.
60. Miller, G. A., & Isard, S. (1964). Free recall of self-embedded English sentences. Information and Control, 7, 292-303.
61. Pearl, J. (2002). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 521-542.
63. Pickering, M. J., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories, language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229-259.
64. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., MacCallum, R. C., & Nicewander, W. A. (2005). Use of the extreme groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10, 178-192.
65. Roberts, R., & Gibson, E. (2002). Individual differences in sentence memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 573-598.
66. Shah. P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4-27.
67. Stabler, E. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.). Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303-336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 295-322.
69. Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C., & Gil, M. (1999). Pragmatic constraint on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1347-1365.
70. Traxler, M. J. (in press). Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory and Cognition.
71. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
72. Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204-224.
73. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.
74. Underwood, B. J. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30, 128-134.
75. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103, 761-772.
76. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2004). Verbal working memory and on-line syntactic processing: Evidence from self-paced listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57(A), 129-163.
77. Yngve, V. H. (1960). A model and a hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444-466.