Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Processing effects in linguistic judgment data: (super-)additivity and reading span scores*

  • PHILIP HOFMEISTER (a1), LAURA STAUM CASASANTO (a2) and IVAN A. SAG (a3)
Abstract

Linguistic acceptability judgments are widely agreed to reflect constraints on real-time language processing. Nonetheless, very little is known about how processing costs affect acceptability judgments. In this paper, we explore how processing limitations are manifested in acceptability judgment data. In a series of experiments, we consider how two factors relate to judgments for sentences with varying degrees of complexity: (1) the way constraints combine (i.e., additively or super-additively), and (2) the way a comprehender’s memory resources influence acceptability judgments. Results indicate that multiple sources of processing difficulty can combine to produce super-additive effects, and that there is a positive linear relationship between reading span scores and judgments for sentences whose unacceptability is attributable to processing costs. These patterns do not hold for sentences whose unacceptability is attributable to factors other than processing costs, e.g., grammatical constraints. We conclude that tests of (super)-additivity and of relationships to reading span scores can help to identify the effects of processing difficulty on acceptability judgments, although these tests cannot be used in contexts of extreme processing difficulty.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Addresses for correspondence: Philip Hofmeister, Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom. e-mail: phofme@essex.ac.uk.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), 390412.
Bard, E., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72 (1), 3268.
Bartek, B., Lewis, R., Vasishth, S., & Smith, M. (2011). In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37 (5), 11781198.
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279362). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bever, T., Carroll, J., & Hurtig, R. (1976). Analogy; or, ungrammatical sequences that are utterable and comprehensible are the origins of new grammars in language acquisition and linguistic evolution. In Bever, T.Katz, J., & Langendoen, D. T. (Eds.), An integrated theory of linguistic ability (pp. 149182). New York: Crowell.
Bod, R. (2006). Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples. The Linguistic Review, 23 (3), 291320.
Bod, R. (2009). From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science, 33 (5), 752793.
Bybee, J. (2007). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82 (4), 711733.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 22 (1), 77126.
Chapman, R. (1974). The interpretation of deviant sentences in English: A transformational approach. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232286). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71132). New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Conway, A., Kane, M., Bunting, M., Hambrick, D., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12 (5), 769786.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450466.
Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2007). What do working memory span tasks like reading span really measure? In Osaka, N., Logie, R., & D’Esposito, M. (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of working memory (pp. 2142). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fanselow, G., & Frisch, S. (2004). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G.Fery, C.Schlesewsky, M., & Vogel, R. (Eds.), Gradience in grammar (pp. 291316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Claudia, M. & Rothe, A. (Eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz? (pp. 6989). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2007). The nature of working memory in linguistic, arithmetic and spatial integration processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 56 (2), 246269.
Ferreira, V., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 (6), 11871199.
Forster, K., & Forster, J. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, 35 (1), 116124.
Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, N., & Miyake, A. (2004). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51 (1), 136158.
Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (3), 225248.
Gleitman, L., & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29 (2), 261290.
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Arnon, I., Sag, I., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28 (1), 4887.
Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86 (2), 366415.
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012a). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, & Phillips. Language, 88 (2), 390400.
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012b). Misapplying working memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum. Language, 88 (2), 408409.
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2013). Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Experimental syntax and the islands debate, (pp. 4263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99 (1), 122149.
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh.
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language, (pp. vii-xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
King, J., & Just, M. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (5), 580602.
King, J., & 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 (3), 376395.
Kluender, R. (1992). Deriving islands constraints from principles of predication. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing (pp. 223258). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 29: The limits of syntax (pp. 241279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8 (4), 573633.
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Kemmer, S. & Barlow, M. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 163). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
MacWhinney, B. (1998). Models of the emergence of language. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 (1), 199227.
Miller, G. (1975). Some comments on competence and performance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 263 (1), 201204.
Miller, G., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R. D.Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, Vol.2 (pp. 419492). New York: Wiley.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (2), 220244.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In Pashler, H. (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155189). Hove: Taylor & Francis.
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82 (4), 795823.
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
Pritchett, B. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pylyshyn, Z. (1973). The role of competence theories in cognitive psychology. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2 (1), 2150.
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA. [Published in 1986 as Infinite Syntax! by Ablex, Norwood, NJ.]
Schütze, C. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sorace, A., & Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115 (11), 14971524.
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.
Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry, 40 (2), 329341.
Sprouse, J., & Hornstein, N. (Eds.) (2013). Experimental syntax and island effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory and syntactic island effects. Language, 88 (1), 82123.
Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2008). The advantage of the ungrammatical. In Love, B.McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 601606). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Sternberg, S. (1969). Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist, 57 (4), 421457.
Tanenhaus, M., Carlson, G., & Seidenberg, M. (1985). Do listeners compute linguistic representations? In Zwicky, A.Kartunnen, L., & Dowty, D. (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psycholinguistic, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 359408). London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tokimoto, S. (2009). Island phenomenon in Japanese and working memory: Syntactic constraints independent from working memory constraints. Poster presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference.
Towse, J., Hitch, G., & Hutton, U. (2000). On the interpretation of working memory span in adults. Memory & Cognition, 28 (3), 341348.
Vos, S., Gunter, T., Schriefers, H., & Friederici, A. (2001). Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16 (1), 65103.
Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 24 (3), 342355.
Watt, W. (1970). On two hypotheses concerning psycholinguistics. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 137220). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Welford, A. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance − a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43 (1), 219.
Whitney, P., Arnett, P., Driver, A., & Budd, D. (2001). Measuring central executive functioning: What’s in a reading span? Brain and Cognition, 45 (1), 114.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 37 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 194 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 16th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.