No abstract

No abstract

Participants remembered a short set of words while reading syntactically complex sentences (object-extracted clefts) and syntactically simpler sentences (subject-extracted clefts) in a memory-load study. The study also manipulated whether the words in the set and the words in the sentence were of matched or unmatched types (common nouns vs. proper names). Performance in sentence comprehension was worse for complex sentences than for simpler sentences, and this effect was greater when the type of words in the memory load matched the type of words in the sentence. These results indicate that syntactic processing is not modular, instead suggesting that it relies on working memory resources that are used for other nonsyntactic processes. Further, the results indicate that similarity-based interference is an important constraint on information processing that can be overcome to some degree during language comprehension by using the coherence of language to construct integrated representations of meaning.

The nature of working memory operation during complex sentence comprehension was studied by means of eye-tracking methodology. Readers had difficulty when the syntax of a sentence required them to hold 2 similar noun phrases (NPs) in working memory before syntactically and semantically integrating either of the NPs with a verb. In sentence structures that placed these NPs at the same linear distances from one another but allowed integration with a verb for 1 of the NPs, the comprehension difficulty was not seen. These results are interpreted as indicating that similarity-based interference occurs online during the comprehension of complex sentences and that the degree of memory accessibility conventionally associated with different types of NPs does not have a strong effect on sentence processing.

The phenomenon of coreference-where two linguistic expressions refer to the same thing-is a central topic in attempts to understand the meaning and structure of language. This is true both for disciplines that attempt to model knowledge of language and for disciplines that attempt to model language processing. Despite their often divergent goals, the disciplines of generative linguistics, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics and formal semantics have all expended considerable energy on aspects of coreference, particularly on the distinction between coreference with full referring expressions, such as names or descriptions, and with reduced referring expressions, such as pronouns. We believe that progress in these different disciplines has provided important ideas that converge in the Direct all correspondence to: Peter C. Gordon, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270; E-Mail: pcg@email.unc.edu; Randall Hendrick, Department of Linguistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3155; E-Mail: hendrick@email.unc.edu. 389 390GORDON AND HENDRICK domain of local coreference, that is coreference within sentences and short strings of sentences that are semantically coherent. In this paper we attempt to integrate that progress in such a way as to provide a unified account that addresses some of the central concerns of each of these disciplines. This account is based on the following principles: (1) The primary function of pronouns (and other reduced expressions) is to refer to things that have already been mentioned in a discourse and which are mentally represented in a discourse model; therefore pronouns are the natural vehicle for coreference. In contrast, the primary function of names (and of other full expressions) is to introduce entities into the discourse model; therefore coreference with repeated names requires additional mental processes. (2) The syntactic and sequential structure of language strongly influence mental representation in the discourse model which in turn influences the interpretation of referring expressions in linguistic input. (3) The discourse model is constructed incrementally with each utterance directly adding conditions that further specify the meaning embodied in the model; exceptions to this direct incremental construction occur in well-marked cases where linguistic forms indicate that a phrase or clause serves to modify the meanings that follow it rather than the meanings that precede it.The paper is organized as follows: First, we briefly review how reference and coreference are approached by different disciplines within cognitive science, with particular attention on how the work contributes to the present effort. Next, we sketch out some basics of the approach taken towards coreference in Kamp and Reyle's (1993) Discourse Representation Theory; our work employs the mechanisms developed in that approach to formal semantics. The main body of our work then shows how the three principles outlin...