Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events

References

• Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.1.278
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   Google Scholar
• Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 62, 384–414. doi: 10.2307/414678
   Google Scholar
• Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Vasishth, S., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 301–349. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.492228
   Google Scholar
• Box, G. E., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26, 211–252.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Berant, J. B., & Edelman, S. (2012). Measuring mental entrenchment of phrases with perceptual identification, familiarity ratings, and corpus frequency statistics. In S. T. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in cognitive linguistics (Vol. 1): Statistical effects in learnability, processing and change (pp. 165–194). The Hague, The Netherlands: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). VWM and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77–126.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2016). Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition, and processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (in press). The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral & Brain Sciences. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.3758/BF03204507
   Google Scholar
• Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. doi: 10.3758/BF03196772
   Google Scholar
• Conway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key? Cognition, 114, 356–371. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.009
   Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
   Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546
   Google Scholar
• Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, P., LeFevre, J., & Twilley, L. C. (1988). Word knowledge and working memory as predictors of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 465–472. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.465
   Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1
   Google Scholar
• Ettlinger, M., Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Wong, P. C. M. (in press). The relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science.
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Individual differences in sentence processing. In M. J. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. F. Joanisse (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 353–364). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.008
   Google Scholar
• Frost, R., Siegelman, N., Narkiss, A., & Afek, L. (2013). What predicts successful literacy acquisition in a second language? Psychological Science, 24, 1243–1252. doi: 10.1177/0956797612472207
   Google Scholar
• Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
   Google Scholar
• Gennari, S. P., Mirkovic, J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 141–176. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97–114. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.003
   Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (pp. 1–8). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, D. P. (1988). Speaking and writing: Distinct patterns of word choice. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 572–585. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90027-7
   Google Scholar
• Hofmeister, P., Casasanto, L. S., & Sag, I. A. (2012). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88, 390–400. doi: 10.1353/lan.2012.0025
   Google Scholar
• Huettig, F., & Brouwer, S. (2015). Delayed Anticipatory Spoken Language Processing in Adults with Dyslexia-Evidence from Eye-tracking. Dyslexia, 21, 97–122. doi: 10.1002/dys.1497
   Google Scholar
• Husain, S., Vasishth, S., & Srinivasan, N. (2014). Strong Expectations Cancel Locality Effects: Evidence from Hindi. PloS One, 9(7), e100986. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100986
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111
   Google Scholar
• James, A. N., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Language experience and prediction in auditory sentence comprehension. Poster presented at the 19th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Marseille, France.
   Google Scholar
• James, A. N., & Watson, D. G. (2014). Language experience predicts eye movements in the visual world: An individual differences investigation. Poster presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Jäger, L., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Lin, C. J. C., & Vasishth, S. (2015). The subject-relative advantage in Chinese: Evidence for expectation-based processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 79–80, 97–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G., & Macken, B. (2015). Questioning short-term memory and its measurement: Why digit span measures long-term associative learning. Cognition, 144, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.009
   Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity-based theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 103, 773–780. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.773
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011
   Google Scholar
• Kemtes, K. A., & Kemper, S. (1997). Younger and older adults’ on-line processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences. Psychology and Aging, 12(2), 362–371. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.12.2.362
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, E. (2012). Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology, 48, 171–184. doi: 10.1037/a0025405
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, E. & Arciuli, J. (in press). Individual differences in statistical learning predict children's comprehension of syntax. Child Development.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A crosslinguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 860–897. doi: 10.1080/01690960601155284
   Google Scholar
• Kimball, J. (1975). Predictive analysis and over-the-top parsing. In J. Kimball (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (pp. 155–179). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
   Google Scholar
• Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2011). Effects of individual differences in verbal skills on eye-movement patterns during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 42–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93–115. doi: 10.1007/BF01708421
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35–54. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.35
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90003-K
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   Google Scholar
• Mani, N., & Huettig, F. (2014). Word reading skill predicts anticipation of upcoming spoken language input: A study of children developing proficiency in reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 264–279. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.05.004
   Google Scholar
• McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2015). Individual differences in chunking ability predict on-line sentence processing. In D. C. Noelle, & R. Dale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1553–1558). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003). Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science, 14, 648–652. doi: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1480.x
   Google Scholar
• Mishra, R. K., Singh, N., Pandey, A., & Huettig, F. (2012). Spoken language-mediated anticipatory eye movements are modulated by reading ability: Evidence from Indian low and high literates. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62, 302–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x
   Google Scholar
• Misyak, J. B., Christiansen, M. H. & Tomblin, J. B. (2010a). On-line individual differences in statistical learning predict language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 31. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00031
   Google Scholar
• Misyak, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., & Tomblin, J. B. (2010b). Sequential expectations: The role of prediction-based learning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 138–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01072.x
   Google Scholar
• Misyak, J. B., Goldstein, M. H., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical-sequential learning in development. In P. Rebuschat & J. N. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 13–54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Montag, J. L., & MacDonald, M. C. (2015). Text exposure predicts spoken production of complex sentences in eight and twelve year old children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 447–468. doi: 10.1037/xge0000054
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the author recognition test. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1095–1109. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0534-3
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, N. S., & Denny, E. D. (1960). The Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Boston, MA: Houghton Miflin.
   Google Scholar
• Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Gattei, C., Sigman, M., & Kliegl, R. (2015). Working memory differences in long-distance dependency resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00312
   Google Scholar
• Novick, J. M., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Putting lexical constraints into the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 107, 850–903. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.011
   Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., Gao, X., Noh, S. R., Anderson, C. J., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2012). The effects of print exposure on sentence processing and memory among older adults: Evidence for efficiency and reserve. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19, 122–149. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2011.628376
   Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., Grison, S., Gao, X., Christianson, K., Morrow, D. G., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2014). Aging and individual differences in binding during sentence understanding: Evidence from temporary and global syntactic attachment ambiguities. Cognition, 130, 157–173. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 521–542. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1024
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rankin, J. L. (1993). Information processing differences of college-age readers differing in reading comprehension and speed. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 261–278.
   Google Scholar
• Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014
   Google Scholar
• Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348–379. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Romberg, A. R., & Saffran, J. R. (2010). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 906–914.
   Google Scholar
• Rommers, J., Meyer, A. S., & Huettig, F. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal predictors of language-mediated anticipatory eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 720–730. doi: 10.3758/s13414-015-0873-x
   Google Scholar
• Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administered scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. Journal of Psychology, 9, 371–377. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704
   Google Scholar
• Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123. doi: 10.1353/lan.2012.0004
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402–433. doi: 10.2307/747605
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64
   Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131, 373–403. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.01.007
   Google Scholar
• Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996a). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103, 761–772. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.761
   Google Scholar
• Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996b). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49, 51–79. doi: 10.1080/713755607
   Google Scholar
• Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996c). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 24, 342–355. doi: 10.3758/BF03213298
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (1981). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–271. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002
   Google Scholar
• West, R. F., Stanovich, K. E., & Mitchell, H. R. (1993). Reading in the real world and its correlates. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 35–50. doi: 10.2307/747815
   Google Scholar