Memory-Load Interference in Syntactic Processing

Participants remembered a short set of words while reading syntactically complex sentences (object-extracted clefts) and syntactically simpler sentences (subject-extracted clefts) in a memory-load study. The study also manipulated whether the words in the set and the words in the sentence were of matched or unmatched types (common nouns vs. proper names). Performance in sentence comprehension was worse for complex sentences than for simpler sentences, and this effect was greater when the type of words in the memory load matched the type of words in the sentence. These results indicate that syntactic processing is not modular, instead suggesting that it relies on working memory resources that are used for other nonsyntactic processes. Further, the results indicate that similarity-based interference is an important constraint on information processing that can be overcome to some degree during language comprehension by using the coherence of language to construct integrated representations of meaning.

[1]  M A Just,et al.  The capacity theory of comprehension: new frontiers of evidence and arguments. , 1996, Psychological review.

[2]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[3]  E. Spelke,et al.  Dividing Attention Without Alternation or Automaticity , 1980 .

[4]  H E Wanner,et al.  An ATN approach to comprehension , 1978 .

[5]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Accounting for the fine structure of syntactic working memory : Similarity-based interference as a unifying principle , 2022 .

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

[7]  N. Cowan.  Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  F. Craik,et al.  Age Differences in Working Memory Tasks: The Role of Secondary Memory and the Central Executive System , 1990, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[9]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Finitary models of language users , 1963 .

[10]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. , 1984 .

[11]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[12]  G. Waters,et al.  Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[13]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  "Schema Abstraction" in a Multiple-Trace Memory Model , 1986 .

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

[15]  P. Gordon,et al.  Memory interference during language processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[17]  G. Miller,et al.  Linguistic theory and psychological reality , 1982 .

[18]  Richard L. Lewis.  Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[19]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

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

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

[22]  D. Navon.  Resources—a theoretical soup stone? , 1984 .

[23]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[24]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Long-term working memory. , 1995, Psychological review.