바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.3

Citation Share

The Effect of the Inference Complexity and the Representational Similarity on Syntactic Complexity Processing

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2015, v.27 no.3, pp.321-340
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.001


& (2015). The Effect of the Inference Complexity and the Representational Similarity on Syntactic Complexity Processing. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(3), 321-340, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.001

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the inference complexity and the representational similarity on understanding of the syntactically complex sentences. More specifically, the current experiments tested whether the processes of the syntactic complexity share resources with the other general cognitive processes such as reasoning and similarity processes. The current experiments also focused on the generality of the representational similarity effect and clarifying the locus and nature of the representational similarity by testing whether the representational similarity interact with the demands of conscious reasoning processing or the demands of syntactic complexity. To do so, Korean and English monolinguals were performed the self-paced reading tasks with sentences varying syntactic complexity, representational similarity and the complexity of the inference processing. In both of the Korean and English experiments, representational similarity and the syntactic complexity showed a significant interaction while the inference complexity did not interact with other variables. The results of the Korean and English experiments suggested that processes of the representational similarity and syntactic complexity come first and share resources while they do not share resources with reasoning processing demands.

keywords
명사구 유사성, 관계절의 복잡성, 관계추론, 작업기억, Representational similarity, syntactic complexity, inference complexity, working memory

Reference

1.

김영진 (1993). 작업기억내에서의 한국어 통사처리과정. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 5(단일호), 153-169.

2.

이병택, 김경중, & 조명한 (1996). 읽기폭에 따르는 언어처리의 개인차: 작업기억과 언어이해. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 8(1), 59-85.

3.

이윤형, & 권나영 (2012). 명사구의 특성이 한국어 문장 이해에 미치는 영향: 안구운동의 추적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 24(2), 149-166.

4.

Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley. 279-362.

5.

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Waters, G. (1998). Effects of syntactic structure and propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow. Cognitive Neuroscience, Journal of, 10(4), 541-552.

6.

Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and brain Sciences, 22(01), 77-94.

7.

Caplan, D., Vijayan, S., Kuperberg, G., West, C., Waters, G., Greve, D., & Dale, A. M. (2002). Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event‐related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human brain mapping, 15(1), 26-38.

8.

Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2006). The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 541-553.

9.

Ferreira, F. (1999). Distinguishing interpretive and post-interpretive processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 98-99.

10.

Friedmann, N., & Gvion, A. (2003). Sentence comprehension and working memory limitation in aphasia: A dissociation between semantic- syntactic and phonological reactivation. Brain and Language, 86(1), 23-39.

11.

Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1-76.

12.

Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313-354.

13.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. (2006). Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(6), 1304.

14.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological science, 13(5), 425-430.

15.

Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(06), 803-831.

16.

Haarmann, H. J., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1997). Aphasic sentence comprehension as a resource deficit: A computational approach. Brain and language, 59(1), 76-120.

17.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological review, 99(1), 122.

18.

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, T. A., Eddy, W. F., & Thulborn, K. R. (1996). Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science, 274(5284), 114-116.

19.

King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of memory and language, 30(5), 580-602.

20.

King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word-and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Cognitive Neuroscience, Journal of, 7(3), 376-395.

21.

Kwon, N. (2008). Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments. ProQuest.

22.

Kwon, N., Gordon, P. C., Lee, Y., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546-582.

23.

Lee, Y., & Kwon, Y. (2013). Understanding mechanisms in transitive inferences: An eye-tracking study in korean reading 1, 2. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 117(3), 761-774.

24.

Lee, Y., Lee, H., & Gordon, P. C. (2007). Linguistic complexity and information structure in Korean: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Cognition, 104(3), 495-534.

25.

Miyamoto, E. T., & Nakamura, M. (2003, March). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In Proceedings of WCCFL 22, 342-355.

26.

Moser, D. C., Fridriksson, J., & Healy, E. W. (2007). Sentence comprehension and general working memory. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 21(2), 147-156.

27.

O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(03), 433-448.

28.

Sweller, J. (1993). Some cognitive processes and their consequences for the organisation and presentation of information. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 1-8.

29.

Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85(1), 79-112.

30.

Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103, 761-772.

31.

Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Schriefers, H., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(1), 65-103.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy