Search

During sentence processing, comprehenders have to maintain a mapping between lexical items and their position in the sentence (syntactic position). We propose a model of morpheme-position binding in working memory, based on models such as 'serial-order-in-a-box' and its SOB-complex-span version. Like those working memory models, our sentence processing version derives a range of attested memory interference effects from the process of item-position binding. We present simulation results capturing similarity-based interference and item-distortion. These two major classes of interference effects have not received a unified account before, and are not fully captured by cue-based retrieval models.

During sentence processing, comprehenders form expectations regarding upcoming material, and may even predict a specific word. Previous event-related potential (ERP) studies have shown that disconfirmed predictions elicit a post-N400-positivity (PNP) with two distinct distributions. A frontal-PNP (f-PNP) is elicited when an unexpected but congruent word appears instead of a highly predictable word, whereas an anomalous word elicits a posterior-PNP. The current study tested the hypothesis that during the processing of a sentence, the predicted word is inhibited to enable the integration of unexpected but congruent material, and that this inhibitory process is reflected in the f-PNP component. In contrast, anomalous continuations, which are not compatible with the preceding context, do not induce inhibition. Experiment 1 used cross-modal lexical priming to test inhibition patterns of predicted words, demonstrating inhibition when integration of a congruent-unexpected word was needed, but not when an anomaly was encountered. Experiment 2 showed that the inhibition observed in Experiment 1 is specific to the predicted word and does not stem from competition between two congruent continuations. In Experiment 3 we recorded ERPs using the same materials, and found that the f-PNP component is elicited under the same conditions giving rise to behavioral inhibition, and that the two are correlated, thus providing preliminary support for the hypothesis that this component reflects an inhibitory process.

During the temporal delay between the filler and gap sites in long-distance dependencies, the "active filler" strategy can be implemented in two ways: the filler phrase can be actively maintained in working memory ("maintenance account"), or it can be retrieved only when the parser posits a gap ("retrieval account"). The current study tested whether filler content is maintained during the processing of dependencies. Using a self-paced reading paradigm, we compared reading times on a noun phrase (NP) between the filler and gap sites in object relative clauses, to reading times on an NP between the antecedent and ellipsis sites in ellipsis sentences. While in the former type of dependency a filler by hypothesis can be maintained, in the latter there is no indication for the existence of a dependency prior to the ellipsis site, and hence no maintenance. By varying the amount of similarity-based interference between the antecedent and integration sites, we tested the influence of holding an unresolved dependency on reading times. Significantly increased reading times due to interference were found only in the object relative condition, and not in the ellipsis condition, demonstrating filler maintenance costs. The fact that these costs were measured as an effect on similarity-based interference indicates that the maintained representation of the filler must include at least some of the features shared by the interfering NP.

During sentence processing, comprehenders form predictions regarding the unfolding of the sentence. The current study is designed to tease apart the role of syntactic motivations, pragmatic considerations and contextual prediction in active dependency formation. Using both production and comprehension measures, we observe prediction for the resolution of a long-distance dependency, even in the absence of syntactic-licensing pressures. However, we find that predictive dependency formation is observed earlier when it is motivated by syntactic pressures. This suggests that the syntax plays a crucial role in this predictive process, even after controlling for pragmatic motivations. We propose that active dependency formation is faster or more binding in syntactically-motivated predictions (i.e. filler-gap dependencies) relative to pragmatically-motivated ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]