Direct evidence of memory retrieval as a source of difficulty in non-local dependencies in language
Author(s)
Unknown author
DownloadFedorenkoWoodburyGibson_June11-2012_MS_FIN[1].pdf (277.4Kb)
OPEN_ACCESS_POLICY
Open Access Policy
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike
Terms of use
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Linguistic dependencies between non-adjacent words have been shown to cause comprehension difficulty, compared to local dependencies. According to one class of sentence comprehension accounts, non-local dependencies are difficult because they require the retrieval of the first dependent from memory when the second dependent is encountered. According to these memory-based accounts, making the first dependent accessible at the time when the second dependent is encountered should help alleviate the difficulty associated with the processing of non-local dependencies. In a dual-task paradigm, participants read sentences that did vs. didn’t contain a non-local dependency (i.e., object- and subject-extracted cleft constructions) while simultaneously remembering a word. The memory task was aimed at making the word held in memory accessible throughout the sentence. In an object-extracted cleft (e.g., It was Ellen who John consulted…), the object (Ellen) must be retrieved from memory when consulted is encountered. In the critical manipulation, the memory word was identical to the verb’s object (ELLEN). In these conditions, the extraction effect was reduced in the comprehension accuracy data and eliminated in the reading time data. These results add to the body of evidence supporting memory-based accounts of syntactic complexity.
Date issued
2013-03Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences; McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MITJournal
Cognitive Science
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Citation
Fedorenko, Evelina, Rebecca Woodbury, and Edward Gibson. "Direct evidence of memory retrieval as a source of difficulty in non-local dependencies in language." Cognitive Science 37.2 (2013) p. 378-394.
Version: Author's final manuscript
ISSN
0364-0213
1551-6709