Abstract
An eye-movement monitoring experiment investigated readers’ response to temporarily ambiguous sentences. The sentences were ambiguous because a relative clause could attach to one of two preceding nouns. Semantic information disambiguated the sentences. Working memory considerations predict an overall preference for the second of the two nouns, as does the late closure principle (Frazier, On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1979). Previous studies assessing preferences for such items have obtained mixed results. On-line assessments show that working memory affects the degree of preference for the first noun, with lower capacity readers having a greater preference for the second noun (Felser et al., Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 11, 127–163, 2003; Traxler, Memory & Cognition, 35, 1107–1121, 2007). Off-line assessments indicate the opposite pattern of preferences when the test sentences are displayed on a single line (Swets et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81, 2007). However, when implicit prosody is manipulated by displaying the sentences with a break between the second noun and the relative clause, the off-line assessments indicate that readers prefer to attach the relative clause to the first noun. In this experiment, readers’ undertook a working memory assessment and then read test sentences that were displayed across two lines, with a break appearing after the second noun and before the relative clause. The eye-tracking data indicated an overall preference to attach the relative clause to the first noun, and there was little indication that working memory moderated the degree of preference for this configuration. Hence, it appears that readers’ implicit prosodic contours rapidly affect resolution of adjunct attachment ambiguities.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Blozis S.A., Traxler M.J. (2007) Analyzing individual differences in sentence processing performance using multilevel models. Behavior Research Methods 39: 31–38
Brysbaert M., Mitchell D.C. (1996) Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology 49: 664–695. doi:10.1080/027249896392540
Caplan D., Waters G.S. (1995) Aphasic disorders of syntactic comprehension and working memory capacity. Cognitive Neuropsychology 12: 637–649. doi:10.1080/02643299508252011
Caplan D., Waters G.S. (1999) Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 77–126
Carreiras M., Clifton C. Jr. (1993) Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech 36: 353–372
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
Daneman M., Carpenter P.A. (1980) Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
Ericsson A., Kintsch W. (1995) Long term working memory. Psychological Review 102: 211–245. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211
Felser C., Marinis T., Clahsen H. (2003) Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 11: 127–163. doi:10.1207/s15327817la1103_1
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Frazier L. (1990) Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism?. In: Balota D, Floresd’ Arcais G.B., Rayner K. (eds) Comprehension processes in reading. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 303–330
Frazier L., Clifton C. Jr. (1996) Construal. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Gibson E. (2000) The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In: Marantz A., Miyashita Y., O’Neil W. (eds) Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 94–126
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. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00636-Y
Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Review 99: 122–149. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
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. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.773
Just M.A., Varma S. (2002) A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review 109: 55–65. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.55
King J.W., Just M.A. (1991) Individual differences in syntactic parsing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 580–602. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
King J.W., Kutas M. (1995) Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7: 376–395. doi:10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376
Kjelgaard M.M., Speer S.R. (1999) Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 153–194. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2620
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. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.35
Pearlmutter N.J., MacDonald M.E. (1995) Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 521–542. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1024
Raudenbush S.W., Bryk A.S. (2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage, Newbury Park, CA
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, and Cognition 30: 1290–1301. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290
Snijders T., Bosker R. (1999) Multilevel analysis. Sage, London
Speer S.R., Kjelgaard M.M., Dobroth K.M. (1996) The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 249–271. doi:10.1007/BF01708573
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
Traxler M.J. (2007) Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition 35: 1107–1121
Traxler M.J., Morris R.K., Seely R.E. (2002) Processing Subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 69–90. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2836
Traxler M.J., Pickering M.J., Clifton C. Jr. (1998) Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 558–592. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2600
Traxler M.J., Tooley K.M. (2007) Lexical mediation and context effects in parsing. Brain Research 1146: 59–74
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 and Language 53: 204–224. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010
Turner M.L., Engle R.W. (1989) Is working memory capacity task dependent?. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 127–154. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
Waters G.S., Caplan D. (1992) The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter. Psychological Review 103: 761–772. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.761
Waters G.S., Caplan D. (1996a) The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49: 51–79. doi:10.1080/027249896392801
Waters G.S., Caplan D. (1996) Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition 24: 342–355
Waters G.S., Caplan D. (2003) The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35: 550–564
Waters G.S., Caplan D., Rochon E. (1995) Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology 12: 1–38. doi:10.1080/02643299508251990
Zagar D., Pynte J., Rativeau S. (1997) Evidence for early-closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology 50: 421–438. doi:10.1080/027249897392161
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Kristen Tooley for assistance in data collection. This project was supported by awards from the National Science Foundation (NSF#0446618) and the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIH#040865). Many thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising this issue and offering a number of very fine suggestions.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Traxler, M.J. A Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis of Working Memory and Implicit Prosody in the Resolution of Adjunct Attachment Ambiguity. J Psycholinguist Res 38, 491–509 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9102-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9102-x