A hierarchical linear modeling analysis of working Memory and implicit prosody in the resolution of adjunct attachment ambiguity

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 491-509

  Traxler, Matthew J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjunct; Ambiguity resolution; Eye tracking; Grammar; Implicit prosody; Relative clause; Sentence processing; Syntax; Working memory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; OCULOGRAPHY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; READING; SHORT TERM MEMORY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME;

COMPREHENSION; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; READING; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 70350292741     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10936-009-9102-x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Blozis S.A.,& Traxler M.J. (2007) Analyzing individual differences in sentence processing performance using multilevel models. Behavior Research Methods 39: 31-38.
2. Brysbaert M.,& Mitchell D.C. (1996) Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology 49: 664-695. doi:10.1080/027249896392540.
3. Caplan D., & Waters G.S. (1995) Aphasic disorders of syntactic comprehension and working memory capacity. Cognitive Neuropsychology 12: 637-649. doi:10.1080/02643299508252011.
4. Caplan D., & Waters G.S. (1999) Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 77-126.
5. Carreiras M., & Clifton C. Jr. (1993) Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech 36: 353-372.
6. 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.
7. Daneman M., & Carpenter P.A. (1980) Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 450-466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.
8. Ericsson A., & Kintsch W. (1995) Long term working memory. Psychological Review 102: 211-245. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211.
9. 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. doi:10.1207/s15327817la1103_1.
10. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
11. Frazier L. (1990) Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism?. In: D. Balota, G. B. Floresd' Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 303-330.
12. Frazier L., & Clifton C. Jr. (1996) Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Gibson E. (2000) The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In: A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, W. O'Neil (Eds.) Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp 94-126.
14. Gilboy E.J., Sopena M., Clifton C. Jr, & Frazier L. (1995) Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition 54: 131-167. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00636-Y.
15. Just M.A., & Carpenter P.A. (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Review 99: 122-149. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122.
16. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A., & Keller T.A. (1996) The capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review 103: 773-780. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.773.
17. Just M.A., & Varma S. (2002) A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review 109: 55-65. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.55.
18. King J.W., & Just M.A. (1991) Individual differences in syntactic parsing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 580-602. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H.
19. King J.W., & Kutas M. (1995) Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7: 376-395. doi:10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376.
20. Kjelgaard M.M., & Speer S.R. (1999) Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 153-194. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2620.
21. MacDonald M.C., & Christiansen M.C. (2002) Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109: 35-54. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.35.
22. Pearlmutter N.J., & MacDonald M.E. (1995) Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 521-542. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1024.
23. Raudenbush S.W., & Bryk A.S. (2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. 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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290.
25. Snijders T., & Bosker R. (1999) Multilevel analysis. London: Sage.
26. Speer S.R., Kjelgaard M.M., & Dobroth K.M. (1996) The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 249-271. doi:10.1007/BF01708573.
27. Swets B., Desmet T., Hambrick D.Z., & Ferreira F. (2007) The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136: 64-81.
28. Traxler M.J. (2007) Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition 35: 1107-1121.
29. 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. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2836.
30. Traxler M.J., Pickering M.J., & Clifton C. Jr. (1998) Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 558-592. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2600.
31. Traxler M.J., & Tooley K.M. (2007) Lexical mediation and context effects in parsing. Brain Research 1146: 59-74.
32. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010.
33. Turner M.L., & Engle R.W. (1989) Is working memory capacity task dependent?. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 127-154. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5.
34. Waters G.S., & Caplan D. (1992) The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter. Psychological Review 103: 761-772. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.761.
35. Waters G.S., & Caplan D. (1996a) The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49: 51-79. doi:10.1080/027249896392801.
36. Waters G.S., & Caplan D. (1996) Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition 24: 342-355.
37. Waters G.S., & Caplan D. (2003) The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35: 550-564.
38. Waters G.S., Caplan D., & Rochon E. (1995) Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology 12: 1-38. doi:10.1080/02643299508251990.
39. Zagar D., Pynte J., & Rativeau S. (1997) Evidence for early-closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology 50: 421-438. doi:10.1080/027249897392161.