Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 376-405

  Hofmeister, Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Complexity; Encoding; Filler gap dependencies; Memory retrieval; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; COMPREHENSION; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 79952713677     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.492642     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748-765.
2. Almor, A. (2004). A computational investigation of reference in production and comprehension. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 285-301). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Almor, A., & Nair, V. (2007). The form of referential expressions in discourse. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 84-99.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human symbol manipulation within an integrated cognitive architecture. Cognitive Science, 29, 313-341.
6. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M., Douglass, S., & Lebiere, C. (2004). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060.
7. Anderson, J. R., Budiu, R., & Reder, L. (2001). A theory of sentence memory as part of a general theory of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 337-367.
8. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. Cermak & F. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385-404). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
11. Baayen, R. H. (2004). Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards. Mental Lexicon Working Papers, 1, 1-45.
12. Bradshaw, G., & Anderson, J. R. (1982). Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 165-174.
13. Budiu, R. (2001). The role of background knowledge in sentence processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
14. Budiu, R., & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Interpretation-based processing: A unified theory of semantic sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 1-44.
15. Cowles, H., & Garnham, A. (2005). Antecedent focus and conceptual distance effects in category noun-phrase anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 725-750.
16. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
17. Fodor, J. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427-473.
18. Gallo, D., Meadow, N., Johnson, E., & Foster, K. (2008). Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 1095-1111.
19. Gernsbacher, M. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99-156.
20. Harrell, F. (2001). Regression modeling strategies. Oxford: Springer.
21. Harrell, F., Lee, K., & Pollock, B. (1998). Regression models in clinical studies: Determining relationships between predictors and response. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 80, 1198-1202.
22. Hirshman, E., Whelley, M., & Palij, M. (1989). An investigation of paradoxical memory effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 594-609.
23. Jaeger, T. F., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2010). Anti-locality in English: Consequences for theories of sentence comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
24. Jaeger, T. F., Fedorenko, E., Hofmeister, P., & Gibson, E. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic processing: Anti-locality effects outside of head-final languages. Paper presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, NC.
25. Just, M., Carpenter, P., & Woolley, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
26. Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In P. Culicover & L. McNally (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 29: The limits of syntax (pp. 241-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unboudned dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196-214.
28. Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 627-645.
29. Lewis, R. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93-115.
30. Lewis, R., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1-45.
31. Lewis, R., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 447-454.
32. McDaniel, M. (1981). Syntactic complexity and elaborative processing. Memory and Cognition, 31, 35-43.
33. McDaniel, M., Dunay, P., Lyman, B., & Kerwin, M.L. (1988). Effects of elaboration and relational distinctiveness on sentence memory. The American Journal of Psychology, 101, 357-369.
34. McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 111-123.
35. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1980). The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 668-682.
36. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
37. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.
38. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5-19.
39. O'Brien, E., & Myers, J. (1985). When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 12-21.
40. Osterhout, L., & Swinney, D. (1993). On the temporal course of gap-filling during comprehension of verbal passives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 273-286.
41. Pinheiro, J., & Bates, D. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS statistics and computing. New York: Springer.
42. Reder, L. (1979). The role of elaborations in memory for prose. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 221-234.
43. Reder, L. (1980). The role of elaboration in the comprehension and retention of prose: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 50, 5-53.
44. Reder, L., Charney, D., & Morgan, K. (1986). The role of elaborations in learning a skill from an instructional text. Memory and Cognition, 14, 64-78.
45. Sanford, A., & Garrod, S. (1989). What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 235-262.
46. Stein, B., Morris, D., & Bransford, J. (1978). Constraints on effective elaboration. Journal of Verbal Learning & Behavior, 17, 707-714.
47. Suckow, K., Vasishth, S., Lewis, R., & Smith, M. (2006). Interference and memory overload during parsing of grammatical and ungrammatical embeddings. Paper presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. New York, NY.
48. Tanenhaus, M., Carlson, G., & Seidenberg, M. (1985). Do listeners compute linguistic representations? In A. Zwicky, L. Kartunnen, & D. Dowty (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psycholinguistic, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 359-408). London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Van Dyke, J. (2007). Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 407-430.
50. Van Dyke, J., & Lewis, R. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285-316.
51. Van Dyke, J., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 157-166.
52. Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R.L. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82, 767-794.
53. Waddill, P., & McDaniel, M. (1998). Distinctiveness effects in recall: Differential processing or privileged retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 26, 108-120.
54. Watkins, M., LeCompte, D., & Kim, K. (2000). Role of study strategy in recall of mixed lists of common and rare words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 26, 239-245.
55. Wiseman, S., MacLeod, C. M., & Lootsteen, P. (1985). Picture recognition improves with subsequent verbal information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 588-595.