Literature DB >> 22752849

Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution.

Ji Hyon Kim1, Kiel Christianson.   

Abstract

Two self-paced reading experiments using a paraphrase decision task paradigm were performed to investigate how sentence complexity contributed to the relative clause (RC) attachment preferences of speakers of different working memory capacities (WMCs). Experiment 1 (English) showed working memory effects on relative clause processing in both offline RC attachment preferences and in online reading time measures, but no effects of syntactic complexity. In Experiment 2 (Korean), syntactic complexity due to greater distance between integrating heads, as measured by the dependency locality theory (Gibson in Cognition 68:1-76, 1998), significantly increased the proportion of attachment to NP1. However, no effects of working memory were found. The difference in results between English and Korean is proposed to be due to head-directionality effects. The results of our study support the conclusion that working memory-based accounts provide a better explanation than previous language-dependent accounts for differences in RC attachment preferences. We propose that previous language dependent-accounts of cross-linguistic differences in RC processing have overlooked the interaction between individual WMC and a language's general structure, which is a central factor in RC attachment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22752849     DOI: 10.1007/s10936-012-9224-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  12 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.  Another word on parsing relative clauses: eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English.

Authors:  M Carreiras; C Clifton
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1999-09

3.  The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity.

Authors:  Tessa Warren; Edward Gibson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2002-08

4.  Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences.

Authors:  Sun-Ah Jun
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2003-03

5.  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

Review 6.  A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory.

Authors:  M A Just; P A Carpenter
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: a hierarchical linear modeling analysis.

Authors:  Matthew J Traxler
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-07

Review 8.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide.

Authors:  Andrew R A Conway; Michael J Kane; Michael F Bunting; D Zach Hambrick; Oliver Wilhelm; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-10

9.  Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism.

Authors:  E Gibson; N Pearlmutter; E Canseco-Gonzalez; G Hickok
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1996-04

10.  Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish.

Authors:  F Cuetos; D C Mitchell
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1988-10
View more
  1 in total

1.  Working Memory Capacity and Relative Clause Attachment Preference of Persian EFL Learners: Does Segmentation Play Any Role?

Authors:  Mohammad Hadi Mahmoodi; Hamidreza Sheykholmoluki; Mohammad Reza Zoghipaydar; Saeed Shahsavari
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2022-01-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.