The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24
Full Issue PDF
[Paper List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp. 35-51
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 04 Nov 2023 Revised 27 Dec 2023 Accepted 12 Jan 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202401.35

Argument Status and Retrieval Interference
Jeongho Lew ; Nayoun Kim
(first author) PhD student, Department of English Language and Literature Sungkyunkwan University 25-2, Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongno-gu Seoul, Korea (jhlew89@skku.edu)
(corresponding author) Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature Sungkyunkwan University 25-2, Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongno-gu Seoul, Korea (nayoun@skku.edu)


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Funding Information ▼
Abstract

It has been suggested that a cue-based retrieval mechanism is involved in the online processing of subject-verb dependency, according to which similarity-based interference is predicted to arise when there are more than one items in memory that match the cues for retrieval (Lewis et al. 2006). Interestingly, Van Dyke and McElree (2011) proposed that the argument status of an intervening non-target item modulates interference effects, such that a cue-matching intervening item in an argument position does not lead to interference effects by virtue of its distinctive syntactic encoding. This study aims to test this hypothesis by investigating whether facilitatory semantic interference effects occur when an intervening non-target item is in the direct object argument position. In a self-paced reading experiment, we found no reading time facilitation in the presence of a semantic cue-matching intervening item, when the target subject did not match the semantic cue provided by the verb. Together with Cunnings and Sturt’s (2023) observation that facilitatory interference effects occur when a semantic cue-matching intervening item is inside an adjunct prepositional phrase, our findings provide further supporting evidence for Van Dyke and McElree’s (2011) hypothesis that the argument status of an intervening item influences interference effects.

Keywords: argument status, dependency formation, cue-based retrieval, interference effect
Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2023S1A5A8079483).

References
1. Ackema, P. 2015. Arguments and adjuncts. In T. Kiss and A. Alexiadou, eds., Syntax - Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Vol. 1, 246-273. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
2. Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson and D. M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 390-412.
3. Barr, D. J., R. Levy, C. Scheepers and H. J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3), 255-278.
4. Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
5. Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
6. Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, 71-132. New York: Academic Press.
7. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Culicover, P. W. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Cunnings, I. and P. Sturt. 2018. Retrieval interference and semantic interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 102, 16-27.
10. Cunnings, I. and P. Sturt. 2023. Illusions of plausibility in adjuncts and co-ordination. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 38, 1318-1337.
11. Frazier, L. and C. Clifton. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Gordon, P. C., R. Hendrick and M. Johnson. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6), 1411-1423.
13. Jäger, L. A., F. Engelmann and S. Vasishth. 2017. Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 94, 316-339.
14. Keenan, E. L. and B. Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 63-99.
15. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1992. Move α. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Lewis, R. L. and S. Vasishth. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29(3), 375-419.
17. Lewis, R. L., S. Vasishth and J. A. Van Dyke. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10), 447-454.
18. Martin, A. E. and B. McElree. 2008. A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language 58(3), 879-906.
19. Martin, A. E. and B. McElree. 2011. Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from Sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language 64(4), 327-343.
20. McElree, B. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 111-123.
21. McElree, B., S. Foraker and L. Dyer. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48(1), 67-91.
22. Nairne, J. S. 2002. The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Memory 10(5-6), 389-395.
23. Öztekin, I. and B. McElree. 2007. Proactive interference slows recognition by eliminating fast assessments of familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language 57(1), 126-149.
24. Parker, D. and A. An. 2018. Not all phrases are equally attractive: Experimental evidence for selective agreement attraction effects. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 1566.
25. Van Dyke, J. A. 2007. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(2), 407-430.
26. Van Dyke, J. A. and B. McElree. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55(2), 157-166.
27. Van Dyke, J. A. and B. McElree. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65(3), 247-263.
28. Van Dyke, J. A. and R. L. Lewis. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3), 285-316.
29. Van Valin, R. D. and R. J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Wagers, M. W., E. F. Lau and C. Phillips. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of memory and language 61, 206-237.
31. Zehr, J. and F. Schwarz. 2018. PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX). Available online at https://doc.pcibex.net/