Graduate studies at Western
Cognitive Science 36 (3):471-497 (2012)
|Abstract||Results from two self-paced reading experiments in English are reported in which subject- and object-extracted relative clauses (SRCs and ORCs, respectively) were presented in contexts that support both types of relative clauses (RCs). Object-extracted versions were read more slowly than subject-extracted versions across both experiments. These results are not consistent with a decay-based working memory account of dependency formation where the amount of decay is a function of the number of new discourse referents that intervene between the dependents (Gibson, 1998; Warren & Gibson, 2002). Rather, these results support interference-based accounts and decay-based accounts where the amount of decay depends on the number of words or on the type of noun phrases that intervene between the dependents. In Experiment 2, presentation in supportive contexts was directly contrasted with presentation in null contexts. Whereas in the null context the extraction effect was only observed during the RC region, in a supportive context the extraction effect was numerically larger and persisted into the following region, thus showing that extraction effects are enhanced in supportive contexts. A sentence completion study demonstrated that the rate of SRCs versus ORCs was similar across null and supportive contexts (with most completions being subject-extractions), ruling out the possibility that an enhanced extraction effect in supportive contexts is due to ORCs being less expected in such contexts. However, the content of the RCs differed between contexts in the completions, such that the RCs produced in supportive contexts were more constrained, reflecting the lexical and semantic content of the preceding context. This effect, which we discuss in terms of expectations/lexico-syntactic priming, suggests that the enhancement of the extraction effect in supportive contexts is due to the facilitation of the subject-extracted condition|
|Keywords||Working memory Relative clauses Supportive context Predictability Sentence processing|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christopher Gauker (2010). Indirect Discourse, Relativism, and Contexts That Point to Other Contexts. In François Recanati, Isidora Stojanovic & Neftali Villanueva (eds.), Context-dependence, Perspective and Relativity in Language and Thought.
Ben Caplan (2003). Putting Things in Contexts. Philosophical Review 112 (2):191-214.
Evelina Fedorenko, Rebecca Woodbury & Edward Gibson (2013). Direct Evidence of Memory Retrieval as a Source of Difficulty in Non-Local Dependencies in Language. Cognitive Science 37 (2):378-394.
Dov Gabbay, Rolf Nossum & John Woods (2006). Context-Dependent Abduction and Relevance. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (1):65 - 81.
David Kirk, Unraveling the Contextual Effects on Student Suspension and Juvenile Arrest: An Examination of School, Neighborhood, and Family Controls.
Ruth Manor (2006). Solving the Heap. Synthese 153 (2):171 - 186.
Nat Hansen & Emmanuel Chemla (2013). Experimenting on Contextualism. Mind and Language 28 (3):286-321.
Philippe Schlenker (2010). Local Contexts and Local Meanings. Philosophical Studies 151 (1):115--142.
Mark Bevir (2000). The Role of Contexts in Understanding and Explanation. Human Studies 23 (4):395-411.
Ágnes LukÁ, Cs & Csaba Pléh (1999). Hungarian Cross-Modal Priming and Treatment of Nonsense Words Supports the Dual-Process Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1030-1031.
Added to index2012-01-19
Total downloads4 ( #189,403 of 739,473 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,473 )
How can I increase my downloads?