Case Matching and Conflicting Bindings Interference

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 40)

Abstract

Similarity-based interference (SBI) has recently gained more attention in the domain of sentence processing (e.g. AQ: Gordon et al. 2007 is cited in text but not given in the reference list. Please chec, Gordon et al. 2007). In this paper we demonstrate that similarity can also have facilitative effects on processing, a finding that interference theories such as Gordon et al’s cannot explain. We offer an explanation for such interference effects as well as the facilitative effects in terms of independently motivated assumptions about the structure of memory representations (Hommel, Vis Cogn 5:183–216, 1998; inter alia). An attractive aspect of this explanation of similarity-based interference and facilitation effects is that so-called case-matching phenomena can also be accounted for. To this end we present two experiments: In Experiment 1 we demonstrate that case matching can occur even with non-coreferent NPs, given a sufficient level of similarity. In Experiment 2 we show that case matching is really driven by abstract case proper as opposed to other properties canonically associated with it. In sum, we provide a unified explanation for interference, facilitation and case-matching effects. A broader implication of this account is that case ambiguities are not resolved immediately but rather the multiple representations are maintained in parallel – a mechanism that is clearly not compatible with serial parsing strategies.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Relative Clause Case Match Main Clause Relative Pronoun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gisbert Fanselow for very helpful suggestions concerning the design of Experiments 1 and 2, as well as Felix Engelmann, Esther Sommerfeld, and Titus von der Malsburg for extensive discussions of the ideas presented in this paper. Furthermore we thank Monique Lamers for very helpful comments on the first draft of this paper.

References

  1. Anderson, J.R., and R. Paulson. 1978. Interference in memory for pictorial information. Cognitive Psychology 9: 178–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babyonyshev, M., and E. Gibson. 1999. The complexity of nested structures in Japanese. Language 75: 423–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bader, M. 1996. Sprachverstehen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bader, M., and M. Meng. 1999. Case attraction phenomena in German. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Jena, Jena.Google Scholar
  5. Bader, M., M. Meng, and J. Bayer. 2000. Case and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D., and D. Sarkar. 2007. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.9975-11) [Computer software].Google Scholar
  7. Bayer, J., M. Bader, and M. Meng. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111: 465–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clifton, C., B. Juhasz, J. Ashby, M.J. Traxler, M.T. Mohamed, R.S. Williams, et al. 2003. The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifton, C., A. Staub, and K. Rayner. 2007. Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In Eye movements: A window on mind and brain, ed. R. van Gompel, M. Fisher, W. Murray, and R.L. Hill, 341–372. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Colzato, L.S., A. Raffone, and B. Hommel. 2006. What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 32: 705–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fanselow, G. 2000. Optimal exceptions. In Lexicon in focus, ed. B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich, 173–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Fanselow, G., M. Schlesewsky, D. Cavar, and R. Kliegl. 1999. Optimal parsing: Syntactic parsing preferences and optimality theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive, 367–1299. http://roa.rutgers.edu/.
  13. Fedorenko, E., M. Babyonyshev, and E. Gibson. 2004. The nature of case interference in online sentence processing in Russian. NELS 34 conference proceedings. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Frazier, L., and K. Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14: 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelman, A., and J. Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, P.C., R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27: 1411–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon, P.C., R. Hendrick, and W.H. Levine. 2002. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13: 425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hommel, B. 1998. Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition 5: 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hommel, B., and L.S. Colzato. 2004. Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition 11: 483–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hopf, J.-M., M. Bader, M. Meng, and J. Bayer. 2003. Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 15: 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inhoff, A.W. 1984. Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23(5): 612–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaan, E. 1997. Processing subject-object ambiguities in Dutch. PhD thesis, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  23. König, E., and W. Lezius. 2003. The TIGER language – A description language for syntax graphs, formal definition (Technical Report). Germany: IMS, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  24. Lamers M.J.A. 2001. Sentence processing: using syntactic, semantic, and thematic information. PhD thesis. Groningen.Google Scholar
  25. Lamers, M.J.A. 2005. Resolving subject-object ambiguities with and without case: Evidence from ERPs. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, ed. M. Amberber and H. de Hoop, 251–293. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, R.L. 1996. Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis, R.L., and S. Vasishth. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis, R.L., S. Vasishth, and J. Van Dyke. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10): 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Logačev, P., and S. Vasishth. (2006). The em package for computing eyetracking measures. Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. Logačev, P. and S. Vasishth. (in preparation). Cue-less retrieval interference and facilitation. Ms, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  31. Mak, W.M., W. Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rock crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4): 466–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McElree, B. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McFadden, T. 2006. German inherent datives and argument structure. In Datives and similar cases, ed. A. Werner, H. Daniel, and M. André. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Meseguer, E., M. Carreiras, and C. Clifton Jr. 2002. Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition 30: 551–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, G.A., and N. Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. II, ed. D.R. Luce, R.R. Bush, and E. Galanter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Oberauer, K., and R. Kliegl. 2006. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Primus, B. 1999. Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rayner, K., and A. Pollatsek. 1987. Eye movements in reading: A tutorial review. In Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, ed. M. Coltheart, 327–362. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Scheepers, C., B. Hemforth, and L. Konieczny. 2000. Linking syntactic functions with thematic roles: Psych-verbs and the resolution of subject-object. In German sentence processing, ed. B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Schlesewsky, M. 1996. Kasusphänomene in der Sprachverarbeitung. PhD thesis, Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
  41. Schlesewsky, M., G. Fanselow, R. Kliegl, and J. Krems. 2000. The subject preference in the ­processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In German sentence processing, ed. B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Suckow, K., S. Vasishth, and R. Lewis. 2005. Interference and memory overload during parsing. Poster presented at the AMLaP conference, Ghent.Google Scholar
  43. Van Dyke, J.A., and R.L. Lewis. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3): 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Dyke, J.A., and B. McElree. 2006. Retrieval Interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vasishth, S. 2008. Integration and prediction in head-final structures. In Processing and producing head-final structure. ed. H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, and J. Packard. Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
  46. Vasishth, S., and R.L. Lewis. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82(4): 767–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vasishth, S., S. Brüssow, R.L. Lewis, and H. Drenhaus. 2008. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science 32(4): 685–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations