Literature DB >> 18922516

Experience and sentence processing: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension.

Justine B Wells1, Morten H Christiansen, David S Race, Daniel J Acheson, Maryellen C MacDonald.   

Abstract

Many explanations of the difficulties associated with interpreting object relative clauses appeal to the demands that object relatives make on working memory. MacDonald and Christiansen [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] pointed to variations in reading experience as a source of differences, arguing that the unique word order of object relatives makes their processing more difficult and more sensitive to the effects of previous experience than the processing of subject relatives. This hypothesis was tested in a large-scale study manipulating reading experiences of adults over several weeks. The group receiving relative clause experience increased reading speeds for object relatives more than for subject relatives, whereas a control experience group did not. The reading time data were compared to performance of a computational model given different amounts of experience. The results support claims for experience-based individual differences and an important role for statistical learning in sentence comprehension processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18922516      PMCID: PMC2621112          DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  47 in total

1.  Word frequency effects in priming performance in young and older adults.

Authors:  Rowena Gomez
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.077

2.  The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation.

Authors:  Padraic Monaghan; Nick Chater; Morten H Christiansen
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2004-12-24

3.  Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension.

Authors:  Manabu Arai; Roger P G van Gompel; Christoph Scheepers
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses.

Authors:  Florencia Reali; Morten H Christiansen
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian.

Authors:  B MacWhinney; C Pléh
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1988-07

6.  The TRACE model of speech perception.

Authors:  J L McClelland; J L Elman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The time course of phonological code activation in two writing systems.

Authors:  M S Seidenberg
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1985-02

8.  Frequency of Basic English Grammatical Structures: A Corpus Analysis.

Authors:  Douglas Roland; Frederic Dick; Jeffrey L Elman
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.059

9.  Is the movement deficit in syntactic SLI related to traces or to thematic role transfer?

Authors:  Naama Friedmann; Rama Novogrodsky
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2006-11-03       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Sensitivity to word order cues by normal and language/learning disabled adults.

Authors:  Elena Plante; Rebecca Gomez; LouAnn Gerken
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.288

View more
  70 in total

1.  Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation.

Authors:  Silvia P Gennari; Jelena Mirković; Maryellen C Macdonald
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Text exposure predicts spoken production of complex sentences in 8- and 12-year-old children and adults.

Authors:  Jessica L Montag; Maryellen C MacDonald
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2015-04

Review 3.  Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel.

Authors:  Dave F Kleinschmidt; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions?

Authors:  Ariel N James; Scott H Fraundorf; Eun-Kyung Lee; Duane G Watson
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 3.059

Review 5.  The multi-component nature of statistical learning.

Authors:  Joanne Arciuli
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 6.  Using experiential optimization to build lexical representations.

Authors:  Brendan T Johns; Michael N Jones; D J K Mewhort
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

7.  Input Training Matters in L2 Syntactic Representation Entrenchment: Evidence from a Follow-Up ERP Study.

Authors:  Taiping Deng; Baoguo Chen
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2019-06

8.  The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments.

Authors:  Philip Hofmeister; T Florian Jaeger; Inbal Arnon; Ivan A Sag; Neal Snider
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2011-10-18

9.  Interactive processing of contrastive expressions by Russian children.

Authors:  Irina A Sekerina; John C Trueswell
Journal:  First Lang       Date:  2012-04-05

10.  Aging and individual differences in binding during sentence understanding: evidence from temporary and global syntactic attachment ambiguities.

Authors:  Brennan R Payne; Sarah Grison; Xuefei Gao; Kiel Christianson; Daniel G Morrow; Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2013-11-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.