The Effect of Phonemic Repetition on Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: Implications for Models of Working Memory

Abstract

Two reading experiments investigated the extent to which the presence of phonemic repetition in sentences influenced processing difficulty during syntactic ambiguity resolution In both experiments, participants read sentences silently as reading time was measured Reading time on sentences containing a temporary syntactic ambiguity was compared to reading time on unambiguous control sentences. Sentences either did or did not contain repeated phonemes. The results showed that reading time was longer for sentences containing a syntactic ambiguity than for unambiguous control sentences. Reading time was also longer on sentences containing repeated phonemes than on sentences that did not contain repeated phonemes. Phonemic repetition did not increase the time taken for syntactic ambiguity resolution; rather, the effects of syntactic ambiguity and phonemic repetition were temporally distinct, with the effect of phonemic repetition following the effect of syntactic ambiguity. Implications for theories of working memory are discussed.

The rhymes that the reader perused confused the meaning: Phonological effects during on-line sentence comprehension

“…Critically, the fact that overlap effects were observed in the course of reading object and subject relative sentences suggests that phonological representations are used on-line as processing unfolds, not solely in memory for the entire sentence while answering comprehension questions or in later re-parsing if the initial sentence interpretation has gone awry (Waters, et al, 1987; Kennison, 2004). This is an important result.…”

“…To date very little is known about how phonological interference plays out in on-line comprehension. Though some studies have used on-line reading measures (e.g., Kennison, 2004; Kennison, et al, 2003; Withaar & Stowe, 1998), the nature of phonological overlap effects in reading have not been particularly conducive to on-line study, in that there likely needs to be some cumulative build-up of phonologically overlapping words in order to see a contrast between overlapping and non-overlapping conditions. For this reason, as well as the sheer difficulty of manipulating phonological overlap in otherwise matched stimulus sets, researchers have not typically controlled the syntactic structure or exact location of phonological overlap within the complete stimulus set, and dependent measures have therefore often emphasized total reading times or after-sentence comprehension measures (e.g., Baddeley, et al, 1981; McCutchen, et al, 1991).…”

Short-term memory, working memory, and syntactic comprehension in aphasia

“…Effects of phonological similarity on self-paced reading times are also contradictory. Kennison (2004) found main effects of initial consonant similarity and syntactic ambiguity, but no interaction of these variables, on reading times for disambiguating and post-disambiguating words in “early closure” syntactic ambiguities ( After Dana/Lea and David/Michael definitely decided/finally agreed) to drive(,) the Datsun/Nissan) (with the damaged door/rusted hood) began to show signs of mechanical problems ), suggesting no role for phonological codes in retrieving information need to recover from initial misinterpretation of these structures. In contrast, Acheson and McDonald (2011) found an increase in self paced reading times for the noun phrase and verb of object, but not subject, relatives clauses in tongue twister compared to non-tongue twister sentences.…”

Working memory involvement in stuttering: Exploring the evidence and research implications

“…Gathercole and Baddeley (1993) noted that such tasks include mental arithmetic, logical reasoning, random letter generation, lengthy digit recall, and semantic verification. Other complex verbal working memory tasks include sentence comprehension (Rochon, Waters, & Caplan, 2000), disambiguating sentences (Kennison, 2004), backward span (Hester, Kinsella, & Ong, 2004), n-back task (McElree, 2001, and tasks that require simultaneous processing of verbal and visual material, such as the double-stimuli task (Loisy & Roulin, 2003). Future investigations in stuttering may benefit from using these and other procedures from working memory literature in dual task or other methodologies.…”