Misapplying working-memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum

Hofmeister, Philip; Casasanto, Laura Staum; Sag, Ivan A.

doi:10.1353/lan.2012.0033

Cited by 39 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted in the response of Hofmeister, Staum Casasanto, and Sag (2012a), a drawback of this study is that there is no body of evidence to indicate how these two measures relate to judgments for hard-to-process sentences generally. It could be, for instance, that no matter what kind of sentence is tested, these two measures of memory lack any relationship to the supplied judgments (for further criticisms, see Hofmeister et al (2012a) and Hofmeister, Staum Casasanto, and Sag (2012b)). In short, we simply do not know if acceptability judgments ever systematically relate to measures of individual cognitive differences (and there may well be significant differences across measures).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 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.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sprouse et al (2012b) contended that their memory tasks were as valid as reading span because serial recall and n-back show strong correlations with other memory tasks including reading span, citing (Conway et al 2005). In reply, Hofmeister et al (2012b) claimed that no such correlations had been reported in Cowan (2015) between reading span and the memory tasks used in Sprouse et al (2012a). The above dispute on how to measure WM suggests that caution is needed in choosing proper verbal WM measurements when examining any possible involvement of WM in acceptability judgment.…”

Section: Individual Wm and Acceptability Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Recent experimental studies indeed have addressed whether individuals' WM differences influence their acceptability judgments (Hofmeister et al 2012a(Hofmeister et al , 2012b(Hofmeister et al , 2013Sprouse et al 2012aSprouse et al , 2012bStaum Casasanto et al 2010). Sprouse et al's (2012a) experiments on WM and island constructions are of particular relevance.…”

Section: Individual Wm and Acceptability Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sprouse et al's findings were followed by a series of arguments and counterarguments. Hofmeister et al (2012aHofmeister et al ( , 2012bHofmeister et al ( , 2013 raised questions as to Sprouse et al's (2012a) research method and data interpretation. WM measurement was one of the issues.…”

Section: Individual Wm and Acceptability Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The role of native speakers in these studies has been by and large restricted to that of the norm group. More recently, however, individual variation in acceptability and factors underlying the variation are increasingly gaining attention in the field of experimental syntax and psycholinguistics Hofmeister et al 2012aHofmeister et al , 2012bHofmeister et al , 2013Sprouse et al 2012aSprouse et al , 2012bStaum Casasanto et al, 2010). Hofmeister and colleagues, among others, attempted to account for the disagreement in sentence acceptability among native speakers in terms of their varying memory spans (Hofmeister, Staum Cassasanto and Sag, 2013;Staum Casasanto, Hofmeister and Sag, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Korean wh-Island Sentences: Individual Differences in Acceptability Judgments and Working Memory

Hahn¹

2019

Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it has been claimed that scrambling in East Asian languages is not subject to wh-island effects, studies into theoretical and experimental syntax have suggested that native Korean speakers vary in their acceptance of island constructions. This study addresses the individual differences in the acceptability judgments of Korean wh-island sentences in terms of working memory. In order to determine if the varied judgments of acceptability are attributable to differences in individuals' working memory, an acceptability judgment test on various Korean wh-island constructions, and two memory span tests-a reading span test and a digit span test-were administered to 66 adult Korean native speakers. Pearson correlation analysis and a factor analysis were then performed on the participants' acceptability judgment ratings and memory spans. The results revealed that the individuals' acceptability judgments for wh-island sentences were not correlated with their reading span or digit span, although the group's mean acceptability of the constructions gradually decreased as their expected processing complexity increased. These findings indicate that differences in individuals' working memory are not the source of the observed acceptability variation.

show abstract

Against ellipsis: arguments for the direct licensing of ‘noncanonical’ coordinations

Kubota

Levine

2015

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misapplying working-memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum

Cited by 39 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

Korean wh-Island Sentences: Individual Differences in Acceptability Judgments and Working Memory

Against ellipsis: arguments for the direct licensing of ‘noncanonical’ coordinations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About