Literature DB >> 26893535

Identifying the role of phonology in sentence-level reading.

Dave Kush1, Clinton L Johns1, Julie A Van Dyke1.   

Abstract

Phonological properties of the words in a sentence have been shown to affect processing fluency and comprehension. However, the exact role of phonology in sentence comprehension remains unclear. If constituents are stored in working memory during routine processing and accessed through their phonological code, phonological information may exert a pervasive influence on post-lexical comprehension processes such as retrieval for thematic integration. On the other hand, if access to constituents in memory during parsing is guided primarily by syntactic and semantic information, the parser should be isolated from phonologically based effects. In two self-paced reading experiments, we tested whether phonological overlap between distractors and a retrieval target caused retrieval interference during thematic integration. We found that phonological overlap creates difficulty during the initial encoding of the filler, but there was no evidence that phonological overlap caused later interference when the filler was retrieved for thematic integration. Despite effects at encoding, phonological interference did not have a detrimental effect on comprehension. These results suggest that phonological information is not used as a retrieval cue during routine dependency construction in incremental sentence processing. We conclude by considering the potential importance of phonology in parsing under conditions of extraordinary syntactic and/or semantic interference.

Entities:  

Keywords:  phonological interference; retrieval interference; sentence comprehension; sentence processing; working memory

Year:  2014        PMID: 26893535      PMCID: PMC4755489          DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mem Lang        ISSN: 0749-596X            Impact factor:   3.059


  34 in total

1.  Brain imaging of tongue-twister sentence comprehension: twisting the tongue and the brain.

Authors:  Timothy A Keller; Patricia A Carpenter; Marcel Adam Just
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.381

2.  Only the shadower knows: comment on Hamburger and Slowiaczek (1996).

Authors:  S D Goldinger
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-06

3.  Memory-load interference in syntactic processing.

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

4.  Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes.

Authors:  Michael W Harm; Mark S Seidenberg
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Boris New
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

6.  At-lexical, articulatory interference in silent reading: the "upstream" tongue-twister effect.

Authors:  D H Robinson; A D Katayama
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1997-09

7.  Effects of phonological similarity on priming in auditory lexical decision.

Authors:  L M Slowiaczek; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-05

8.  The Rhymes that the Reader Perused Confused the Meaning: Phonological Effects during On-line Sentence Comprehension.

Authors:  Daniel J Acheson; Maryellen C Macdonald
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

9.  Does silent reading involve articulation? Evidence from tongue twisters.

Authors:  L R Haber; R N Haber
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1982

10.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.

Authors:  M S Seidenberg; J L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Does learning to read shape verbal working memory?

Authors:  Catherine Demoulin; Régine Kolinsky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

2.  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 3.  A neuronal retuning hypothesis of sentence-specificity in Broca's area.

Authors:  William G Matchin
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

4.  Encoding and Retrieval Interference in Sentence Comprehension: Evidence from Agreement.

Authors:  Sandra Villata; Whitney Tabor; Julie Franck
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-01-19

5.  Semantic and Syntactic Interference in Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison of Working Memory Models.

Authors:  Yingying Tan; Randi C Martin; Julie A Van Dyke
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-02-15

6.  The Reading Signatures of Agreement Attraction.

Authors:  Sol Lago; Carlos Acuña Fariña; Enrique Meseguer
Journal:  Open Mind (Camb)       Date:  2021-11-01

7.  Age-related differences in the retrieval of phonologically similar words during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs.

Authors:  Hossein Karimi; Michele Diaz
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2021-06-19       Impact factor: 2.781

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.