Human sentence parsing continues to be the subject of active research after decades of research. Psycholinguists have found that Working Memory (WM) is a critical resource in the syntactic parsing of sentences ([1]). They have also found that there are significant differences between individuals with reference to their WM spans ([2], [1], [3], [4], [5]).
A number of alternate models have been proposed to predict which sentences will be perceived to be highly complex; the most influential ones include the following:
- Functional Completeness/ segmentation models ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]),
- Locality Theory ([13]),
- Kimball's Seven Principles ([14]),
- Two-stage Parsing([15]),
- Perspective Shifts ([16])
The underlying logic in sentence processing models is that sentences are read sequentially; the initial part of a clause must be kept in memory while processing the later part of the clause - and both ends must be in memory while assimilating the clause. Experiments have also shown that items stored in short-term Working Memory become inaccessible after a short interval. Experiments also show that incoming items can interfere with items already in Working Memory if they share some features. Clearly, if Working Memory span is limited, the contents of the initial part of the clause may have been lost (or interfered with) by the time the end of the clause is reached.
References
- [KingJust1991] King J, Just A.. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language. 1991;30:580-602.
- [Miller1956] Miller G.. The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 1956;63:81-97.
- [Carroll1993] Carroll J.. Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
- [FedorenkoGibsonRohde2006] Fedorenko E., Gibson E., Rohde D.. The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory and Language. 2006;54:541-553.
- [Cowan2010] Cowan N.. The Magical Mystery Four: How is Working Memory Capacity Limited, and Why? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2010;19:51-57.
- [Yngve1961] Yngve V.. The Depth Hypothesis. In: Jakbson R., editor. Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects. American Mathematical Society; 1961.
- [ChomskyMiller1963] Chomsky N., Miller G.. Introduction to the formal analysis of languages. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. 1963;2:269-321.
- [MillerChomsky1963] Miller G., Chomsky N.. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. 1963;2:419-491.
- [CarrollTanenhaus1978] Carroll J., Tanenhaus M.. Functional Clauses and Sentence Segmentation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 1978;21:793-808.
- [FodorBeverGarrett1974] Fodor J., Bever T., Garrett M.. The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1974.
- [Gibson1991] Gibson E.. A Computational Theory of Human Linguistic Processing:Memory Limitations and Processing Breakdown. Carnegie-Mellon University; 1991.
- [StineMorrowEtAl2010] Stine-Morrow E., Shake M., Miles J., Lee K., Gao X., McConkie M.. Pay Now or Pay Later: Aging and the Role of Boundary Salience in Self-Regulation of Conceptual Integration in Sentence Processing. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25:168-176.
- [Gibson1998] Gibson E.. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition. 1998;68:1-76.
- [Kimball1973] Kimball J.. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural languages. Cognition. 1973;2.
- [FrazierFodor1978] Frazier L., Fodor J.. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 1978;6:291-325.
- [MacWhinney1977] MacWhinney B.. Starting Points. Language. 1977;53:152-168.