Abstract
Similarity-based interference (SBI) has recently gained more attention in the domain of sentence processing (e.g. AQ: Gordon et al. 2007 is cited in text but not given in the reference list. Please chec, Gordon et al. 2007). In this paper we demonstrate that similarity can also have facilitative effects on processing, a finding that interference theories such as Gordon et al’s cannot explain. We offer an explanation for such interference effects as well as the facilitative effects in terms of independently motivated assumptions about the structure of memory representations (Hommel, Vis Cogn 5:183–216, 1998; inter alia). An attractive aspect of this explanation of similarity-based interference and facilitation effects is that so-called case-matching phenomena can also be accounted for. To this end we present two experiments: In Experiment 1 we demonstrate that case matching can occur even with non-coreferent NPs, given a sufficient level of similarity. In Experiment 2 we show that case matching is really driven by abstract case proper as opposed to other properties canonically associated with it. In sum, we provide a unified explanation for interference, facilitation and case-matching effects. A broader implication of this account is that case ambiguities are not resolved immediately but rather the multiple representations are maintained in parallel – a mechanism that is clearly not compatible with serial parsing strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Retrieval interference occurs during a retrieval operation, e.g. while processing the head, but it is dependent on the relation between the target item and competitors.
- 2.
There is one caveat to this experiment, however. In (2a) and (2d) the nouns involved match in gender, which is not so in (2b) and (2d). So the data do not exclude an interpretation in which gender and abstract case conspire to cause interference if both match, while the case marker does not have any effect at all.
- 3.
We will furthermore assume throughout this paper, that B1 and B2 will conflict only if F1 and F2 are of the same type, e.g. case, gender, etc. This is only for expository reasons. Untyped bindings make the same predictions.
- 4.
More formally, if two objects have n and all features belonging to an object are bound to each other every feature will be bound to \( (n-1)\) others. Since bindings are bidirectional, both objects will consist of \( ((n-1)+(n-2)+\dots +2+1)\) bindings each. If they match in k features, each object will contain \( k*(n-k)\)conflicts, because only bindings from matching to mismatching features are conflicting, and every object contains k of the former and \( (n-k)\) of the latter. If we increase similarity by making q more features match, the number of conflicts will be \((k+q)*(n-(k+q))\). An interference effect due to additional similarity corresponds to \( k*(n-k)<(k+q)*n-((k+q))\). One can easily show that this is the case iff k < n/2. Thus one can formally demonstrate that for low levels of similarity, CBRI predicts an interference effect if the objects are made more similar, while for high levels of similarity it predicts the opposite.
- 5.
Admittedly, the exact differences between the numbers of matching and mismatching features for any two objects may appear to be a free parameter in the CBRI theory. They are, however, not completely unconstrained. Although precise quantitative predictions of CBRI rely on the objects’ similarity at least on an interval scale, we can still derive qualitative predictions from similarity rankings on an ordinal scale, available from uncontroversial intuitions and possibly similarity rating studies.
- 6.
The self-paced reading method was used to ensure comparability of our results with the results obtained by Schlesewsky (1996) and Fanselow et al. (1999). The plausibility rating study on the other hand, served to exclude potential systematic differences in plausibility caused by the fact that the proposition of the sentence was not constant across conditions.
- 7.
These questions were meant to direct the participants’ attention to the fact that the embedded clause object was a partitive construction and not a pronoun.
- 8.
If the verb was preceded by an adverb (in two items), it was included in the region too. One item lacked an auxiliary, and so the region consisted of the verb only.
References
Anderson, J.R., and R. Paulson. 1978. Interference in memory for pictorial information. Cognitive Psychology 9: 178–202.
Babyonyshev, M., and E. Gibson. 1999. The complexity of nested structures in Japanese. Language 75: 423–450.
Bader, M. 1996. Sprachverstehen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Bader, M., and M. Meng. 1999. Case attraction phenomena in German. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Jena, Jena.
Bader, M., M. Meng, and J. Bayer. 2000. Case and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 37–52.
Bates, D., and D. Sarkar. 2007. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.9975-11) [Computer software].
Bayer, J., M. Bader, and M. Meng. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111: 465–514.
Clifton, C., B. Juhasz, J. Ashby, M.J. Traxler, M.T. Mohamed, R.S. Williams, et al. 2003. The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 317–334.
Clifton, C., A. Staub, and K. Rayner. 2007. Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In Eye movements: A window on mind and brain, ed. R. van Gompel, M. Fisher, W. Murray, and R.L. Hill, 341–372. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Colzato, L.S., A. Raffone, and B. Hommel. 2006. What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 32: 705–716.
Fanselow, G. 2000. Optimal exceptions. In Lexicon in focus, ed. B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich, 173–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Fanselow, G., M. Schlesewsky, D. Cavar, and R. Kliegl. 1999. Optimal parsing: Syntactic parsing preferences and optimality theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive, 367–1299. http://roa.rutgers.edu/.
Fedorenko, E., M. Babyonyshev, and E. Gibson. 2004. The nature of case interference in online sentence processing in Russian. NELS 34 conference proceedings. Amherst: GLSA Publications.
Frazier, L., and K. Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14: 178–210.
Gelman, A., and J. Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, P.C., R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27: 1411–1423.
Gordon, P.C., R. Hendrick, and W.H. Levine. 2002. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13: 425–430.
Hommel, B. 1998. Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition 5: 183–216.
Hommel, B., and L.S. Colzato. 2004. Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition 11: 483–521.
Hopf, J.-M., M. Bader, M. Meng, and J. Bayer. 2003. Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 15: 165–177.
Inhoff, A.W. 1984. Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23(5): 612–624.
Kaan, E. 1997. Processing subject-object ambiguities in Dutch. PhD thesis, University of Groningen
König, E., and W. Lezius. 2003. The TIGER language – A description language for syntax graphs, formal definition (Technical Report). Germany: IMS, Universität Stuttgart.
Lamers M.J.A. 2001. Sentence processing: using syntactic, semantic, and thematic information. PhD thesis. Groningen.
Lamers, M.J.A. 2005. Resolving subject-object ambiguities with and without case: Evidence from ERPs. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, ed. M. Amberber and H. de Hoop, 251–293. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Lewis, R.L., and S. Vasishth. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29: 1–45.
Lewis, R.L., S. Vasishth, and J. Van Dyke. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10): 447–454.
Logačev, P., and S. Vasishth. (2006). The em package for computing eyetracking measures. Potsdam, Germany.
Logačev, P. and S. Vasishth. (in preparation). Cue-less retrieval interference and facilitation. Ms, University of Potsdam.
Mak, W.M., W. Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rock crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4): 466–490.
McElree, B. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 111–123.
McFadden, T. 2006. German inherent datives and argument structure. In Datives and similar cases, ed. A. Werner, H. Daniel, and M. André. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meseguer, E., M. Carreiras, and C. Clifton Jr. 2002. Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition 30: 551–561.
Miller, G.A., and N. Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. II, ed. D.R. Luce, R.R. Bush, and E. Galanter. New York: Wiley.
Oberauer, K., and R. Kliegl. 2006. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 601–626.
Primus, B. 1999. Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Rayner, K., and A. Pollatsek. 1987. Eye movements in reading: A tutorial review. In Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, ed. M. Coltheart, 327–362. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Scheepers, C., B. Hemforth, and L. Konieczny. 2000. Linking syntactic functions with thematic roles: Psych-verbs and the resolution of subject-object. In German sentence processing, ed. B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schlesewsky, M. 1996. Kasusphänomene in der Sprachverarbeitung. PhD thesis, Universität Potsdam.
Schlesewsky, M., G. Fanselow, R. Kliegl, and J. Krems. 2000. The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In German sentence processing, ed. B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Suckow, K., S. Vasishth, and R. Lewis. 2005. Interference and memory overload during parsing. Poster presented at the AMLaP conference, Ghent.
Van Dyke, J.A., and R.L. Lewis. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3): 285–316.
Van Dyke, J.A., and B. McElree. 2006. Retrieval Interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 157–166.
Vasishth, S. 2008. Integration and prediction in head-final structures. In Processing and producing head-final structure. ed. H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, and J. Packard. Springer, 2010.
Vasishth, S., and R.L. Lewis. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82(4): 767–794.
Vasishth, S., S. Brüssow, R.L. Lewis, and H. Drenhaus. 2008. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science 32(4): 685–712.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Gisbert Fanselow for very helpful suggestions concerning the design of Experiments 1 and 2, as well as Felix Engelmann, Esther Sommerfeld, and Titus von der Malsburg for extensive discussions of the ideas presented in this paper. Furthermore we thank Monique Lamers for very helpful comments on the first draft of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Logačev, P., Vasishth, S. (2012). Case Matching and Conflicting Bindings Interference. In: Lamers, M., de Swart, P. (eds) Case, Word Order and Prominence. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1462-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1463-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)