Literature DB >> 22448181

Comprehension of Linguistic Dependencies: Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff Evidence for Direct-Access Retrieval From Memory.

Stephani Foraker1, Brian McElree.   

Abstract

Comprehenders can rapidly and efficiently interpret expressions with various types of non-adjacent dependencies. In the sentence The boy that the teacher warned fell, boy is readily interpreted as the subject of the verb fall despite the fact that a relative clause, that the teacher warned, intervenes between the two dependent elements. We review research investigating three memory operations proposed for resolving this and other types of non-adjacent dependencies: serial search retrieval, in which the dependent constituent is recovered by a search process through representations in memory, direct-access retrieval in which the dependent constituent is recovered directly by retrieval cue operations without search, and active maintenance of the dependent constituent in focal attention. Studies using speed-accuracy tradeoff methodology to examine the full timecourse of interpreting a wide range of non-adjacent dependencies indicate that comprehenders retrieve dependent constituents with a direct-access operation, consistent with the claim that representations formed during comprehension are accessed with a cue-driven, content-addressable retrieval process. The observed timecourse profiles are inconsistent with a broad class of models based on several search operations for retrieval. The profiles are also inconsistent with active maintenance of a constituent while concurrently processing subsequent material, and suggest that, with few exceptions, direct-access retrieval is required to process non-adjacent dependencies.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22448181      PMCID: PMC3310376          DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00313.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Linguist Compass        ISSN: 1749-818X


  37 in total

Review 1.  Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension.

Authors:  D Caplan; G S Waters
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 12.579

2.  Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures.

Authors:  B McElree
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2000-03

3.  Memory-load interference in syntactic processing.

Authors:  Peter C Gordon; Randall Hendrick; William H Levine
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2002-09

4.  Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity.

Authors:  M C MacDonald; M A Just; P A Carpenter
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: digging-in effects.

Authors:  Whitney Tabor; Sean Hutchins
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  A working memory workout: how to expand the focus of serial attention from one to four items in 10 hours or less.

Authors:  Paul Verhaeghen; John Cerella; Chandramallika Basak
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Is the focus of attention in working memory expanded through practice?

Authors:  Klaus Oberauer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Julie A Van Dyke; Brian McElree
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.059

9.  Speed-accuracy trade-off in recognition memory.

Authors:  A V Reed
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-08-10       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Comparison of the retrieval of item versus spatial position information.

Authors:  S D Gronlund; M B Edwards; D D Ohrt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.051

View more
  9 in total

1.  Temporary ambiguity and memory for the context of spoken language.

Authors:  Kaitlin Lord; Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-03-30

2.  Prominence-sensitive pronoun resolution: New evidence from the speed-accuracy tradeoff procedure.

Authors:  Dave Kush; Clinton L Johns; Julie A Van Dyke
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  An interference account of the missing-VP effect.

Authors:  Jana Häussler; Markus Bader
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-06-16

4.  The Interplay between Topic Shift and Focus in the Dynamic Construction of Discourse Representations.

Authors:  Xiaohong Yang; Xiuping Zhang; Cheng Wang; Ruohan Chang; Weijun Li
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-12-08

5.  Assessing Intervention Effects in Sentence Processing: Object Relatives vs. Subject Control.

Authors:  João Delgado; Ana Raposo; Ana Lúcia Santos
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-02-02

6.  Filling Predictable and Unpredictable Gaps, with and without Similarity-Based Interference: Evidence for LIFG Effects of Dependency Processing.

Authors:  Kimberly Leiken; Brian McElree; Liina Pylkkänen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-11-16

7.  Poor readers' retrieval mechanism: efficient access is not dependent on reading skill.

Authors:  Clinton L Johns; Kazunaga Matsuki; Julie A Van Dyke
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-10-16

8.  Structure Modulates Similarity-Based Interference in Sluicing: An Eye Tracking study.

Authors:  Jesse A Harris
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-12-18

9.  The Relationship Between Anaphor Features and Antecedent Retrieval: Comparing Mandarin Ziji and Ta-Ziji.

Authors:  Brian Dillon; Wing-Yee Chow; Ming Xiang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-01-05
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.