Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many theories have been proposed to explain difficulty with center embedded constructions, most attributing the problem to some kind of limited-capacity short-term memory. However, these theories have developed for the most part independently of more traditional memory research, which has focused on uncovering general principles such as chunking and interference. This article attempts to gain some unification with this research by suggesting that an interesting range of core sentence processing phenomena can be explained as interference effects in a sharply limited syntactic working memory. These include difficult and acceptable embeddings, as well as certain limitations on ambiguity resolution, length effects in garden path structures, and the requirement for locality in syntactic structure. The theory takes the form of an architecture for parsing that can index no more than two constituents under the same syntactic relation. A limitation of two or three items shows up in a variety of other verbal short-term memory tasks as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abney, S. P., & Johnson, M. (1991). Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 233–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Kline, P. J., & Lewis, C. H. (1977). A production system model of language processing. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.),Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1966). Short-term memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic, and formal similarity.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 362–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1990).Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. L. (1989).English syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.),Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, G. D. (1989). A finite and real-time processor for natural language.Communications of the ACM, 32, 1174–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blauberg, M. S., & Braine, M. D. S. (1974). Short-term memory limitations on decoding self-embedded sentences.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 745–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, A. L. (1966). Observations with self-embedded sentences.Psychonomic Science, 6, 453–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test.Psychological Review, 97, 404–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.),A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1986).Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, K. W. (1980).On memory limitations in natural language processing (Tech. Rep. MIT/LCL/TR-245). Cambridge, MA: Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, R. (1963). Acoustic confusions and memory span for words.Nature, 197, 1029–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowper, E. A. (1976).Constraints on sentence complexity: A model for syntactic processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brown University.

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, A., Johnson, R., King, M., Rosner, M., Sampson, G., & Varile, N. (1982). A myth about center-embedding.Lingua, 58, 327–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, D. (1970). Tones and numbers: Specificity of interference in immediate memory.Science, 168, 1604–1605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences.Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. E. (1992).Syntactic locality and tree adjoining grammar: Grammatical, acquisition and processing perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model.Cognition, 6, 291–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993).Working memory and language. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. A. (1991).A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon. (Available Tech. Rep. CMU-CMT-91-125, from Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. A., & Pearlmutter, N. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of psycholinguistic constraints on PP attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner, (Eds.),Perspectives in sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. A., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzales, E., & Hickok, G. (1993).Crosslinguistic attachment preferences: Evidence from English and Spanish. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Gordon, R. (1982).The listener resolves an ambiguity. Unpublished paper for the Westinghouse science talent search.

  • Hakes, D. T., & Cairns, H. S. (1970). Sentence comprehension and relative pronouns.Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakuta, K. (1981). Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese.Cognition, 9, 197–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. (1994). Description based parsing in a connectionist network. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. (Available as Tech. Rep. IRCS-94-12 from The Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Walnut St., Suite 400C, Philadelphia, PA 19104).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, V. M., & O'Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudgins, J. C., & Cullinan, W. L. (1978). Effects of sentence structure on sentence elicited imitation responses.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 809–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai, (Eds.),Japanese sentence processing (pp. 9–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kac, M. B. (1981). Center-embedding revisited. InProceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 123–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempen, G., & Vosse, T. (1989). Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing.Connection Science, 1, 273–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language.Cognition, 2, 15–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1987). Soar: An architecture for general intelligence.Artificial Intelligence, 33, 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, W., & Burns, D. (1977). Sentence comprehension and memory for embedded structure.Memory & Cognition, 5, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. L. (1993).An architecturally-based theory of human sentence comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University. (Available as Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-93-226 from Computer Science Dept, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, or reports @ cs.cmu.edu.)

  • Lewis, R. L. (1995).A theory of grammatical but unacceptable embeddings. Submitted manuscript, Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University.

  • Lewis, R. L., & Lehman, J. F. (1994).A theory of the computational architecture of sentence comprehension. Submitted manuscript, Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University.

  • Logie, R. H., Zucco, G. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Interference with visual shortterm memory.Acta Psychologica, 75, 55–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnussen, S., Greenlee, M. W., Asplund, R., & Dyrnes, S. (1991). Stimulus-specific mechanisms of visual short-term memory.Vision Research, 31, 1213–1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, M. P. (1980).A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, L. E. (1968). Scaling of gramrnaticalness of self-embedded English sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 965–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. C. (1993). Short-term memory and sentence processing: Evidence from neuropsychology.Memory & Cognition, 21, 176–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., Kiritani, S., Niwa, S., Ikejira, K., & Naitoh, K. (1989). Processing of Japanese garden path, center-embedded, and multiply left-embedded sentences.Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (Tokyo), 23, 187–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. D. (1988).The syntactic phenomena of English, volume 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch, J. A., & McDonald, W. T. (1931). Meaningful relation and retroactive inhibition.American Journal of Psychology, 43, 579–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.The Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar.American Psychologist, 17, 748–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In D. R. Luce, R. R. Bush & E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (vol. II). New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & Isard, S. (1964). Free recall of self-embedded English sentences.Information and Control, 7, 292–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. (1990).Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poizner, B. L., Bellugi, U., & Tweney, R. D. (1981). Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in American Sign Language.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1146–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M. C. (1976). Short-term conceptual memory for pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 509–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M. C. (1982).Very short-term memory: In one eye and out the other. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis.

  • Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B. L. (1992).Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, P. (1969). The finiteness of natural language.Language, 45, 831–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, P. S., Lehman, J. F., & Laird, J. E. (1993). Overview of Soar as a unified theory of cognition: Spring 1993. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 98–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. R. (1967).Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Shiffrin, R. M. (1973). Information persistence in short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, H. G. (1970). Similarity effects in short-term memory.Psychological Bulletin, 75, 399–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk?Science, 183, 482–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A., & Zhang, G. (1985). STM capacity for Chinese words and idioms: Chunking and the acoustical loop hypotheses.Memory & Cognition, 13, 193–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stabler, E. P. (1994).The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 295–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambe, M., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1990). The problem of expensive chunks and its solution by restricting expressiveness.Machine Learning, 5, 299–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walk, H. A., & Johns, E. E. (1984). Interference and facilitation in short-term memory for odors.Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 508–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. D. (1970). The role of syntactic complexity as a determiner of comprehensibility.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 398–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J., & Glass, A. L. (1987). Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences.Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waugh, N. C., & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory.Psychological Review, 72, 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, G., & Ferrara, K. (1990). Empirical study of predictive powers of simple attachment schemes for post-modifier prepositional phrases. InProceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 23–30) Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickelgren, W. A. (1965). Acoustic similarity and retroactive interference in short-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. L., Beaver, W. S., Spence, M. T., & Rundell, O. H. (1969). Digital and kinesmetic memory with interpolated information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 530–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yngve, V. H. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444–466.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Information Science, The Ohio State University, 2015 Neil Avenue, 43210, Columbus, Ohio

    Richard L. Lewis

Authors
  1. Richard L. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard L. Lewis.

Additional information

Preparation of this paper was supported by a grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation to the Human Information Processing Group at Princeton University. Many thanks to Martin Chodorow, Terry Langendoen, Thad Polk, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on the paper and research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewis, R.L. Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. J Psycholinguist Res 25, 93–115 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708421

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708421

Keywords

Search

Navigation