| |
Abstract:
In this study, it was investigated whether different types of
working memory are used during normal sentence processing and how
they relate to each other. We orthogonally manipulated sentential
complexity (subject vs. object relative constructions) and
phonological complexity (similar vs. dissimilar) in a self paced
grammaticality judgement experiment. Examples of phonologically
similar subject and object relatives are shown in (1a) and (1b)
respectively.
(1a) Ik denk dat de chauffeur die de monteurs keurt, vaak
zeurt. lit.: I think that the driver that the mechanics
judges-sg., often complains.
(1b) Ik denk dat de chauffeur die de monteurs keuren, vaak
zeurt. lit.: I think that the driver that the mechanics
judge-pl., often complains.
To assess potential capacity differences, two memory spans
were collected: the Dutch version of the Daneman and Carpenter
Reading Span and a non-word span. The first span measure taps
both processing and storage capacity, whereas the non-word span
reflects phonological store capacity.
Like Just and Carpenter (1992), we found that object relatives
were more demanding to memory than subject relatives, yielding
more errors and slower reading times on the embedded verb. This
effect was stronger in Daneman and Carpenter low spanners than in
high spanners. After the embedded verb, high spanners showed an
interaction of similarity by complexity. Similar sentences
yielded slower reading times in the complex, but not in the
simple condition. Low spanners showed no significant similarity
effects. Non-word span did not correlate with syntactic or
phonological complexity.
The fact that high spanners are slowed down by similarity in
the complex condition supports the claim that syntactic
reanalysis takes place partly on the basis of a phonological
representation (Baddeley, Vallar and Wilson, 1987), since
similarity is known to burden phonological storage (Gathercole
and Baddeley, 1993). Crucially, no similarity effects were found
in the simpler subject relatives. Hence, the phonological
representation does not seem to be used in first pass analysis,
but serves as a back up in reanalysis (Waters, Caplan and
Hildebrandt, 1991). This interaction was not found in low
spanners, probably because they have no resources available for
maintenance or access of the phonological information.
Baddeley, A., Vallar, G. and Wilson, B. (1987). "Sentence
comprehension and phonological memory: some neuropsychological
evidence." In: Coltheart, M. (ed.).
Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of
Reading.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove and London (UK); Hillsdale,
N.J. (USA), 509--529.
Gathercole, S.E. and Baddeley, A.D. (1993).
Working Memory and Language.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove and London (UK); Hillsdale,
N.J. (USA).
Just, M.A. and Carpenter, P.A. (1992). "A capacity theory of
comprehension: individual differences in working memory."
Psychological Review,
99(1), 122-49.
Waters, G., Caplan, D. and Hildebrandt, N. (1991). "On the
structure of verbal short-term memory and its functional role in
sentence comprehension: evidence from neuropsychology."
Cognitive Neuropsychology,
8(2), 81-126.
|
