On the cost of syntactic ambiguity in human language comprehension: an individual differences approach.

We present an event-related brain potential (ERP) study demonstrating that high and low span readers show qualitatively different brain responses in the comprehension of ambiguous and complex linguistic stimuli. During the processing of ambiguous German sentences, low span readers showed a broadly distributed, sustained positivity, whereas high span participants showed a shorter, topographically more focused negativity. Qualitatively similar effects were observable in response to (complex) object-initial sentences. Additionally, a neural effect reflecting reanalysis in sentences disambiguated in a dispreferred way (P600) was observable only for high span readers, while the low span group showed an N400-like response. These neurophysiological findings support the notion that individual working memory capacity as measured by the reading span test influences sentence processing mechanisms and are compatible with the hypothesis that low span readers cannot effectively inhibit dispreferred readings.

[1]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses , 1998, Biological Psychology.

[2]  H. M. Müller,et al.  Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. , 1997, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[3]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  The Processing of Locally Ambiguous Relative Clauses in German , 1995 .

[4]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension , 2004 .

[5]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  E. Gibson.  Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[7]  G. Waters,et al.  The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992) , 1996, Psychological review.

[8]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[9]  Marta Kutas,et al.  When temporal terms belie conceptual order , 1998, Nature.

[10]  Randall W Engle,et al.  Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Working memory, inhibitory control, and reading disability , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load , 2001 .

[13]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  The mechanism of suppression: a component of general comprehension skill. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  R. Engle,et al.  The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  E Donchin,et al.  Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[16]  M. Kutas,et al.  Bridging the Gap: Evidence from ERPs on the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  M. Kutas,et al.  Who Did What and When? Using Word- and Clause-Level ERPs to Monitor Working Memory Usage in Reading , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[18]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[19]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The syntactic positive shift (sps) as an erp measure of syntactic processing , 1993 .

[20]  L Hasher,et al.  Working memory span and the role of proactive interference. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  C. Fiebach,et al.  Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: the processing of German WH-questions , 2002 .

[22]  J. Henderson,et al.  Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences ☆ , 1991 .

[23]  Howard Steven Kurtzman,et al.  Studies in syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1985 .

[24]  M. Just,et al.  Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  JOHN A. HAWKINS,et al.  Symmetries and asymmetries: their grammar, typology and parsing , 2002 .

[26]  M. Just,et al.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory , 1991 .

[27]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Sentence processing: Mechanisms , 2003 .

[28]  Edward Gibson,et al.  A computational theory of human linguistic processing: memory limitations and processing breakdown , 1991 .

[29]  L. Frazier,et al.  Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in dutch , 1989 .

[30]  A. Friederici.  Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[31]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity , 2002, Cognition.

[32]  Working Memory and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution as Revealed by ERPs: A Difficult Case for Activation Theories , 2003 .

[33]  Paul Griffith Gorrell,et al.  STUDIES OF HUMAN SYNTACTIC PROCESSING: RANKED-PARALLEL VERSUS SERIAL MODELS , 1987 .

[34]  G. Waters,et al.  Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[35]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[36]  Ray Johnson,et al.  Lexical Contributions to Retention of Verbal Information in Working Memory: Event-Related Brain Potential Evidence , 1999 .

[37]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly , 1992 .

[38]  Eric Reuland,et al.  PET studies of language: An assessment of the reliability of the technique , 1994 .

[39]  M. Just,et al.  Working Memory Constraints on the Resolution of Lexical Ambiguity: Maintaining Multiple Interpretations in Neutral Contexts , 1994 .