Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:08:13.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining the sentence superiority effect for sentences presented and reported in forwards or backwards order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Elin Roverud Open the ORCID record for Elin Roverud [Opens in a new window] ,
Ann R. Bradlow  and
Gerald Kidd Jr.
Elin Roverud*
Affiliation:
Boston University
Ann R. Bradlow
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Gerald Kidd Jr.
Affiliation:
Boston University
*
*Corresponding author: Email: erover@bu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Memory for speech benefits from linguistic structure. Recall is better for sentences than for random strings of words (the “sentence superiority effect”; SSE), and evidence suggests that ongoing speech may be organized advantageously as clauses in memory (recall by word position shows within-clause U shape). In this study, we examined the SSE and clause-based organization for closed-set speech materials with low semantic predictability and without typical prosody. An overall SSE was observed and accuracy by word position was enhanced at the clause boundaries for these materials. Next, we tested the effects of mental manipulation on the SSE and clause-based organization. Listeners heard word strings that were syntactic, were arranged syntactically then presented backwards, or were random draws. Participants responded to materials as presented or in reversed order, requiring mental manipulation. Clause-level organization was apparent only for materials presented in syntactic order regardless of response order. After accounting for benefits due to reductions in uncertainty for these close-set materials, an SSE was present for syntactic materials regardless of response order, and for the syntactic backwards condition with reverse-order response (yielding a syntactically correct sentence in the response). Thus, the SSE was both resistant to and could be obtained following mental manipulation.

Keywords

memorysentence superiority effectsyntax
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 381 - 400
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2009). Working memory and binding in sentence recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 438–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G., Lackner, J. R., & Kir, R. (1969). The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonhage, C. E., Fiebach, C. J., Bahlmann, J., & Mueller, J. L. (2014). Brain signature of working memory for sentence structure: Enriched encoding and facilitated maintenance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1654–1671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonhage, C. E., Meyer, L., Gruber, T., Friederici, A., & Mueller, J. L. (2017). Oscillatory EEG dynamics underlying automatic chunking during sentence processing. NeuroImage, 152, 647–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brener, R. (1940). An experimental investigation of memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deese, J., & Kaufman, R. A. (1957). Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 180–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, W. (1961). The influence of syntactical structure on learning. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 80–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, W. (1962). A further study of the influence of syntactical structure on learning. American Journal of Psychology, 75, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagerman, B. (1982). Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvella, R. J. (1970). Effects of syntax on running memory span for connected discourse. Psychonomic Science, 19, 235–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. J. (1971). Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. J., (1973). Coreference and short-term memory for discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 426–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. J., & Herman, S. J. (1972). Clause structure of sentences and speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. J. (1979). Immediate memory and discourse processing. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 379–421). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, G. K. Jr., Best, V., & Mason, C. R. (2008). Listening to every other word: Examining the strength of linkage variables in forming streams of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 3793–3802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, L. E., & Miller, G. A. (1964). The role of semantic and syntactic constraints in the memorization of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1976). Memory and levels of processing in psycholinguistic context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 112–119.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A., & Isard, S. (1963). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Selfridge, J. A. (1950). Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material. American Journal of Psychology, 63, 176–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murdoch, B. B. Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheerer, E. (1981). Early German approaches to experimental reading research: The contributions of Wilhelm Wundt and Ernst Meumann. Psychological Research, 43, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, H. E., & del Prado Martín, F. M. (2015). Memory capacity limits in processing of natural connected speech: They psychological reality of intonation units. Paper presented at the 37th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
Wagener, K., Kühnel, V., & Kollmeier, B. (1999). Development and evaluation of a German sentence test: I. Design of the Oldenburg sentence test. Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38, 4–15.Google Scholar