Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An eye-movement-monitoring experiment tested readers’ responses to sentences containing relative clauses that could be attached to one or both of two preceding nouns. Previous experiments with such sentences have indicated that globally ambiguous relative clauses are processed more quickly than are determinately attached relative clauses. Central to the present research, a recent study (Swets, Desmet, Hambrick, & Ferreira, 2007) showed that offline preferences for such sentences differ as a function of working memory capacity. Specifically, both English and Dutch participants’ preference for the second of two nouns as the host for the relative clause increased as their working memory capacity increased. In the present study, readers’ working memory capacity was measured, and eye movements were monitored. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine whether working memory capacity moderated readers’ online processing performance. The modeling indicated that determinately attached sentences were harder to process than globally ambiguous sentences, that working memory did not affect processing of the relative clause itself, but that working memory did moderate how easy it was to integrate the relative clause with the preceding sentence context. Specifically, in contrast with the offline results from Swets and colleagues’ study, readers with higher working memory capacity were more likely to prefer the first noun over the second noun as the host for the relative clause.

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

  • Altmann, G. T. M., &Steedman, M. J. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing.Cognition,30, 191–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blozis, S. A., &Traxler, M. J. (2007). Analyzing individual differences in sentence processing performance using multilevel models.Behavior Research Methods,39, 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brysbaert, M., &Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 664–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, D., &Waters, G. S. (1995). Aphasic disorders of syntactic comprehension and working memory capacity.Cognitive Neuropsychology,12, 637–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, D., &Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 77–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, M., &Clifton, C., Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English.Language & Speech,36, 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clahsen, H., &Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners.Applied Psycholinguistics,27, 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C., Traxler, M. J., Williams, R., Mohammed, M., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 317–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., &Thornton, R. (2006). Acquisition of syntax and semantics. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.),The handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 1073–1110). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cuetos, F., &Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish.Cognition,30, 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,20, 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., &Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 422–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., &de Baecke, C. D. (2002). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 879–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M., &Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy: Evidences from Italian.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,22, 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M., &Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felser, C., Marinis, T., &Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment.Language Acquisition,11, 127–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,27, 285–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1979).On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? In D. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303–330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., &Clifton, C., Jr. (1996).Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., &Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 505–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisson, S., &Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1366–1383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisson, S., &Pickering, M. J. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification.Metaphor & Symbol,16, 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989).The structure building framework. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies.Cognition,68, 1–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboy, E. J., Sopena, M., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs.Cognition,54, 131–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., &Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1411–1423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., &Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing.Psychological Science,13, 425–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. J., &Mitchell, D. C. (2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,55, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking, I. (2003).Resources and parsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Available at www.ianhocking.com/Thesis_-Final_ Submitted_Version.pdf.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., &Keller, T. A. (1996). The capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments.Psychological Review,103, 773–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., &Varma, S. (2002). A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002).Psychological Review,109, 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. W., &Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic parsing: The role of working memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 580–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. W., &Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using wordand clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,7, 376–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., &Christiansen, M. C. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996).Psychological Review,109, 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity.Cognitive Psychology,24, 56–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review,101, 676–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., &Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.),The handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 581–612). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, A., & Pearlmutter, N. (1999, March).Individual differences in attachment preferences. Poster presented to the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York.

  • Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., &Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,24, 469–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlmutter, N. J., &MacDonald, M. E. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., &Bryk, A. S. (2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye-movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., &Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye-movements in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 1290–1301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R., &Gibson, E. (2002). Individual differences in sentence memory.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,31, 573–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., &Bosker, R. J. (1999).Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey-Knowlton, M., &Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints.Cognition,55, 227–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., &Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,136, 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., &Sealy, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye-movements.Journal of Memory & Language,47, 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., &Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 558–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., &Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses.Journal of Memory & Language,53, 204–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. L., &Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., &Traxler, M. J. (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy (Ed.),Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621–648). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., &Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models.Journal of Memory & Language,45, 225–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, G. S., &Caplan, D. (1992). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter.Psychological Review,103, 761–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, G. S., &Caplan, D. (1996a). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, G. S., &Caplan, D. (1996b). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences.Memory & Cognition,24, 342–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, G. S., &Caplan, D. (2003). The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measuresBehavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35, 550–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, G. S., Caplan, D., &Rochon, E. (1995). Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.Cognitive Neuropsychology,12, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagar, D., Pynte, J., &Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for earlyclosure attachment on first-pass reading times in French.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A, 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, 95616, Davis, CA

    Matthew J. Traxler

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Traxler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Traxler.

Additional information

This project was supported by Grants R01-HD040865 and R01-HD48914 from the National Institutes of Health and by Grant 0446618 from the National Science Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Traxler, M.J. Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition 35, 1107–1121 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193482

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193482

Keywords

Search

Navigation