Cargando…
Interference in the processing of adjunct control
Recent research on the memory operations used in language comprehension has revealed a selective profile of interference effects during memory retrieval. Dependencies such as subject–verb agreement show strong facilitatory interference effects from structurally inappropriate but feature-matching dis...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4561755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26441723 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01346 |
_version_ | 1782389064356331520 |
---|---|
author | Parker, Dan Lago, Sol Phillips, Colin |
author_facet | Parker, Dan Lago, Sol Phillips, Colin |
author_sort | Parker, Dan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Recent research on the memory operations used in language comprehension has revealed a selective profile of interference effects during memory retrieval. Dependencies such as subject–verb agreement show strong facilitatory interference effects from structurally inappropriate but feature-matching distractors, leading to illusions of grammaticality (Pearlmutter et al., 1999; Wagers et al., 2009; Dillon et al., 2013). In contrast, dependencies involving reflexive anaphors are generally immune to interference effects (Sturt, 2003; Xiang et al., 2009; Dillon et al., 2013). This contrast has led to the proposal that all anaphors that are subject to structural constraints are immune to facilitatory interference. Here we use an animacy manipulation to examine whether adjunct control dependencies, which involve an interpreted anaphoric relation between a null subject and its licensor, are also immune to facilitatory interference effects. Our results show reliable facilitatory interference in the processing of adjunct control dependencies, which challenges the generalization that anaphoric dependencies as a class are immune to such effects. To account for the contrast between adjunct control and reflexive dependencies, we suggest that variability within anaphora could reflect either an inherent primacy of animacy cues in retrieval processes, or differential degrees of match between potential licensors and the retrieval probe. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4561755 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45617552015-10-05 Interference in the processing of adjunct control Parker, Dan Lago, Sol Phillips, Colin Front Psychol Psychology Recent research on the memory operations used in language comprehension has revealed a selective profile of interference effects during memory retrieval. Dependencies such as subject–verb agreement show strong facilitatory interference effects from structurally inappropriate but feature-matching distractors, leading to illusions of grammaticality (Pearlmutter et al., 1999; Wagers et al., 2009; Dillon et al., 2013). In contrast, dependencies involving reflexive anaphors are generally immune to interference effects (Sturt, 2003; Xiang et al., 2009; Dillon et al., 2013). This contrast has led to the proposal that all anaphors that are subject to structural constraints are immune to facilitatory interference. Here we use an animacy manipulation to examine whether adjunct control dependencies, which involve an interpreted anaphoric relation between a null subject and its licensor, are also immune to facilitatory interference effects. Our results show reliable facilitatory interference in the processing of adjunct control dependencies, which challenges the generalization that anaphoric dependencies as a class are immune to such effects. To account for the contrast between adjunct control and reflexive dependencies, we suggest that variability within anaphora could reflect either an inherent primacy of animacy cues in retrieval processes, or differential degrees of match between potential licensors and the retrieval probe. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4561755/ /pubmed/26441723 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01346 Text en Copyright © 2015 Parker, Lago and Phillips. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Parker, Dan Lago, Sol Phillips, Colin Interference in the processing of adjunct control |
title | Interference in the processing of adjunct control |
title_full | Interference in the processing of adjunct control |
title_fullStr | Interference in the processing of adjunct control |
title_full_unstemmed | Interference in the processing of adjunct control |
title_short | Interference in the processing of adjunct control |
title_sort | interference in the processing of adjunct control |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4561755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26441723 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01346 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT parkerdan interferenceintheprocessingofadjunctcontrol AT lagosol interferenceintheprocessingofadjunctcontrol AT phillipscolin interferenceintheprocessingofadjunctcontrol |