|
Abstract:
Our experiments aim at clarifying the function of phonological
(short term) representations in syntactic processing. We
investigated the role of the phonological loop (PL) in processing
complex syntactic structures. To clarify the composition of the
information stored in working memory, we used the immediate
serial recall paradigm (ISR). Participants were accustically
presented with (German) sentences varying in syntactic complexity
and length of nouns. Subjects had to hold the sentences in
working memory and recall them immediately.
Syntactic processing difficulty was varied by means of German
embedded subject (a) vs. object (b) wh-questions, such as
(1).
| (1) |
preambiguous region: |
|
|
Als die beiden vor der Tur standen, fragte Kurt Hans,
As both were standing in front of the door Kurt asked Hans,
ambiguous region:
welche Aerztinnen (Verkaeuferinnen) die Frau (Sekretaerin)
auf die Party
which doctors (shop-assistents) the woman (secretary) to the
party
disambiguating region:
eingeladen a.hatten/ b. hatte.
invited a. had[pl]/ b. had[sng].
|
The embedded wh-questions were only disambiguated by the
number of the auxiliary verb at the end of the clause (Subject
before Object (SO) in a. (hatten[pl]), Object before Subject (OS)
in b. (hatte[sng])).
Secondly, the length (number of syllables) of the nouns in the
embedded clause was varied. In an earlier experiment (Konieczny
and Rummer, 1997), we found significant word length effects, but
neither a syntactic complexity effect, nor an interaction between
lenght and complexity. However, subjects were not instructed to
process the materials deeply in that experiment.
Two factors were added to the design:
1. Level of processing. Half of the subjects were instructed
to semantically process the sentences, the other half to only
remember the surface structure of the sentences.
2. Early vs. late disambiguation: To distinguish the cost of
processing local ambiguities and garden-pathing from mere
syntactic complexity, unambiguous version of the sentences were
added.
Thus, the experiment was based on a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 design: (f1)
syntactic complexity (subject-object-ordering), (f2) length
(short nouns vs. long nouns), (f3) early vs. late disambiguation,
and (f4) level of processing (between subjects).
The question central to this paper is whether there will be an
interaction between (f1) syntactic complexity and (f2) word
lenght for the subjects instructed for conceptual processing. An
interaction would support Baddeley et al.'s approach (e.g.,
1987), whereas the lack of such an interaction would support a
more modular approach of working memory in sentence processing
(cf. Waters and Caplan, 1996).
Baddeley, A. D., Vallar, G. and Wilson, B. A. (1987). Sentence
comprehension and phonological memory: Some neuropsycological
evidence. In M. Coultheart (Ed.).
Attention and performance XII: The psychology of
reading.
Hove: Erlbaum. 509-529.
Konieczny, L. and Rummer, R. (1997). Phonological storage and
syntactic processing are dissociated. Poster presented at the
AMLaP-97, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Waters, G. S. and Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of
sentences comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992).
Psychological Review,
103, 761-772.
|
