Multistore vs unitary store LTM vs STM Modalityspecific stores Distinct executive processes Access mechanisms Parallel Contentaddressable Using specific combinations of cues and encodings ID: 813454
Download The PPT/PDF document "Memory & Language Memory encoding &..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Memory & Language
Memory encoding & access = linguistic computation
Multi-store vs. unitary store
LTM vs. STM
Modality-specific stores
Distinct executive processes
Access mechanisms
Parallel
Content-addressable
Using specific combinations of cues and encodings
Slide2Memory Mechanisms
Encoding and accessing information in (multiple) structured representations
Slide3Is there a green square?
Slide4Is there a green square?
Slide5Is there a green square?
Slide6Is there a green square?
Slide7Is there a green square?
Slide8Is there a green square?
Slide9Is there a green square?
Slide10Is there a green square?
Slide11Is there a green square?
Slide12Is there a green square?
Slide13Is there a green square?
Dual Visual Search Mechanisms
Feature search
is
(
i
) fast, set-size invariant
(ii) susceptible to interference,
partial
matches,
and “illusory conjunction”
Conjunction search
is slow, serial
(
Treisman
&
Gelade
1980 etc.;
but cf.
McElree
& Carrasco, 1999)
Slide14Slide15Slide16Levels of Analysis
Structural alternatives
… how to identify them
… how to implement them
Slide17Content-Addressable Memory (CAM)
Core properties
Bi-partite architecture
(Very) limited
focus of attention
[‘active’ memory]
Large capacity passive memory [subject to decay/interference]
Parallel, cue-based accessCues resonate with items in passive memoryParallel access to all items at onceNoise yields partial match
Broadbent 1958;
Wickelgren et al., 1980; Garavan
, 1998; Cowan, 2001; McElree, 2006;
Verhaegen & Basak
, 2007; Jonides et al., 2008
Slide18the
key
to
the
cells
were
S
Subj
PP
VP
V
the
key
to
the
cells
were
S
Subj
PP
VP
V
Agreement attraction
serial, structure-guided search
parallel, cue-guided search
In content-addressable memory
+plural
+subject
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Wagers, Lau, & Phillips, 2009
Slide19Agreement Attraction
Agreement is disrupted by local and non-local lures
The key to the
cabinets
are
on the table.The musicians who the reviewer praise for their skill
…‘Grammatical Asymmetry’ (Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009)The key to the cabinets are on the table. Illusion of acceptability
The key to the cabinets is on the table. No illusion of unacc.
Slide20Size Doesn’t Matter
Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff (SAT)
Slide21SAT: Possible Outcomes
Asymptotic difference
Reflects the strength of the representation or the likelihood of completing a parse/process.
Rate/intercept difference
Reflects the speed of processing:
how quickly information accumulates continuously, or the differences in an underlying discrete finishing time distribution.
Slide22Evidence from memory dynamics
talk – yard – boat – store - tales
Probe recognition – SAT response-signal task
Wickelgren
, et al., 1980,
McElree
&
Dosher
, 1989
FAST
SLOOOOOWWWW
Slide23Slide24McElree
, Foraker, & Dyer 2003
“Memory structures that
subserve
sentence comprehension”, J.
Mem
. Lang.
Slide25Distance affects asymptote, but not temporal dynamics
Interpretation: whole sentence accessed in parallel – no serial search
Concern:
wh
-constructions are not a good test of distance effects
Slide26Lewis et al. 2006
Slide27(Lewis,
Vasishth
, & van Dyke 2006,
TICS
; cf.
McElree
2006)
Memory-access Model: ACT-R
Key featuresParallel-access
time-constant retrievalContent-addressable susceptible to partial-match interference
Limited-size buffers ~ restricted focus of attention; const. shunting
Some content cues
+plural+masculine+animate+quantificational
subjectmain clausecurrent clauseetc.
Slide28VP-distance manipulation (Expt
1)
The editor admired the author’s writing, but the critics did not.
The editor admired the author’s writing, but the binding did not.
The editor admired the author’s writing, but everyone at the publishing house was shocked to hear that the critics did not.
The editor admired the author’s writing, but everyone at the publishing house was shocked to hear that the binding did not.
Martin &
McElree 2008
Antecedent distance effect (Expt 1)
distance affects asymptote,but not dynamics
Slide29VP-complexity manipulation (Expt
3)
The history professor
understood Roman mythology
…
The history professor
understood Rome’s swift and brutal destruction of Carthage …… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overworked students
[…] did not.… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overly worn books […] did notMartin & McElree 2008
Antecedent distance effect
(Expt
1)no effect of complexity
on dynamics or asymptote
distance affects asymptote,
but not dynamics
Slide30VP-complexity manipulation (Expt
3)
The history professor
understood Roman mythology
…
The history professor
understood Rome’s swift and brutal destruction of Carthage …… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overworked students
[…] did not.… but the principal was displeased to learn that the overly worn books […] did notMartin & McElree 2008
no effect of complexity
on dynamics or asymptote
But …
The time course profile measures the sensicality judgment task.Task requires only matching of subject with antecedent verb. Added complexity isn’t relevant.
Needed: a version of this study where entire VP is task relevant.
Slide31What about ellipsis?
Need to specify
…
cues
targets
constraints
Susan
read the book and Joe did [e] too.Susan read something, but I don’t know what [e].Susan loves pizza and Joe [e] donuts.
Susan has read more books than Joe [e].
Slide32“The key to the
cells
unsurprisingly
were
rusty …”
(Bock & Miller 1991;
Pearlmutter
et al. 1999; Deevy
et al. 1998; Staub 2009; Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009;
Eberhard et al. 2005)
Agreement Illusions
“The key to the cell unsurprisingly
were rusty …”
It’s not simply ‘proximity concord’:
“The
musicians who the reviewer praise so highly …”
“The musician who
the reviewer praise
so highly …”
And it is selective – plurals create illusions, singulars don’t
“
The keys
to the
cell
unsurprisingly
was
rusty …”
And it happens all the time …
Not only do we produce agreement errors – we generally fail to notice them
Slide33“Rapid writing will no doubt give rise to inaccuracy. … A singular nominative will be disgraced by a plural verb, because other pluralities have intervened and have tempted the ear into plural tendencies. I am ready to declare that, with much training, I have been unable to avoid them.”
(Anthony Trollope, 1883)
Slide34What causes agreement attraction?
Encoding: hallucinating plural subject
Access:
misretrieving
irrelevant noun
Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009,
J
Mem
Lang
Evidence: Grammatical Asymmetry
Illusions of acceptability
The key to the cabinet
were
The key to the cabinets were
No illusions of unacceptability The key to the cabinet was
The key to the cabinets was
Slide35the
key
to
the
cells
were
S
Subj
PP
VP
V
the
key
to
the
cells
were
S
Subj
PP
VP
V
Two ways to search structures in memory
serial, structure-guided search
parallel, cue-guided (direct) access
in
content-addressable memory
+plural
+subject
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
structure-sensitive, avoids interference
slow, esp. for longer relations
susceptible to interference
fast, even for longer relations
McElree
et al. 2003; Lewis et al. 2006; Martin &
McElree
2008, 2009; Wagers, Lau, & Phillips, 2009
Slide3636
Argument: Everybody does it
No indication in RT differences.
SG
The
musician
who the reviewer
praises
/
praise
so highly
PL The musicians
who the reviewer praises/praise so highly
Slide37Argument: Timing
Lago
et al. 2015,
J
Mem
Lang
Slide38Argument: Timing
Lago
et al. 2015,
J
Mem
Lang
Slide39Argument: Cross-language Parallels
Comprehension:
English, Spanish, Russian, …
Production:
English, German, French, Slovene, Russian, Basque, Spanish, Dutch, …
Islands: easy to test intuitive judgments in many languages
Agreement: easy-
ish to listen for attraction errors hard to identify comprehension profiles ( experiment)
Slide40Same Memory – Different Access
Subject-Verb Agreement
The
diva
[that accompanied the
harpist
on stage] clearly
was flawless …The
diva [that accompanied the harpists on stage] clearly was flawless …
The diva [that accompanied the harpist on stage] clearly were
flawless …The diva [that accompanied the harpists on stage] clearly
were flawless …Subject-Reflexive Agreement
The diva [that accompanied the harpist on stage] clearly presented herself
…The diva [that accompanied the harpists on stage] clearly presented herself
…The diva [that accompanied the harpist
on stage] clearly presented themselves …The diva [that accompanied the harpists
on stage] clearly presented
themselves
…
Dillon,
Mishler
,
Sloggett
, & Phillips, 2013
illusion
no illusion
Both processes require access to same element
-- the subject of the same clause.
Slide41Constraints Cues?
A pronoun is an
instruction to find something in memory
E.g.,
himself
Content = 3
rd
person singular masculineLocation = subject of same clauseConstraints could be directly translated into retrieval cues.Or they could be used as post-retrieval checks.e.g.,
himself retrieve [subject], check [person, number, gender]Structural constraints map differently onto retrieval cues.e.g., referential pronoun (‘him’)e.g., bound variable pronouns (c-command constraint)
e.g., Mandarin long-distance ziji (intervention effect)
Slide42But production …
Kandel et al. 2019
Slide43Two Russian Puzzles
#1: Accidental Syncretism (
Slioussar
2015)
komnata
dlja vecherinki
roomNOM.SG for party{GEN.SG|NOM.PL}komnata dlja vecherinok
roomNOM.SG for party{GEN.PL}
Slide44Two Russian Puzzles
#2: Immunity to Attraction (
Slioussar
&
Malko
2016)
okno vo
dvorwindowNEUT to yardMASCVyxod v pole
exitMASC to fieldNEUT
Slide45Assignment #3: Memory Mechanisms
How good is the evidence that we manage linguistic information using the mechanisms of Content Addressable Memory that are independently motivated from memory research? Do these mechanisms come at too high a cost, in light of what we know about language structure and the time course of language processing?
Due: Tuesday May 14
Synthesis/opinion piece: < 2,000 words
Slide46Memory Issues
Properties of Content-addressable memory (CAM) & evidence
Limited focus of attention
Parallel match to cues
Non-effects of distance
Partial-match interference
Grammatical asymmetry
ChallengesLinguistic: relational propertiesLinguistic: interventionLinguistic: combinatoricsEmpirical: selective fallibilityEmpirical: active processingEmpirical: response bias
Slide47Interference & Illusions depend on …
Limited focus of attention NO
Unitary store NO
Parallel access NO
Cue-based retrieval YES
Partial matches YES
Noisy architecture YES
Retrieval, not active processing YES
Slide48Active Processing
Keeping track of unfulfilled needs
What is tracked, what counts as success?
Representational debates
Respecting constraints
Source of constraints
Different loci of uncertainty
Slide49Super-additivity
Example: testing ‘reductionist’ accounts of islands
‘Theoretical’ claim: island violations are not ungrammatical, just difficult
(e.g.,
Kluender
& Kutas 1993; Hofmeister & Sag 2010)if
island effects reflect processing capacity overload,then severity of island effects should co-vary with individual capacityIsland: interaction of (i) long extraction, (ii) island-inducing structuresSubject islanda. Who ___ thinks the speech interrupted the TV show?
b. Who do you think ___ interrupted the TV show?c. Who ___ thinks the speech about global warming interrupted the TV show?d. *Who do you think the speech about ___ interrupted the TV show?
Sprouse, Wagers, & Phillips 2012, Language
±Length
±Complex
Subject
±Both
Slide50size of island effect
island violation
Sprouse
, Wagers, & Phillips 2012,
Language
Slide514 island types, 2 memory tasks (serial recall,
n
-back),
n
= 315
island severity vs. memory capacity
capacity differences account for 0% - 3% of variance
Sprouse
, Wagers, & Phillips 2012, Language
Memory capacity (non-)correlations
Slide522. Gaps
Who do you think that Susan gave a book to __?
Question: are there gaps?
Suggestion: timing might help!
Finding: not so helpful
… but we learn a lot along the way
Slide532. Gaps
What did [the attempt to repair __] ultimately damage __?
Question: why are subjects islands?
Suggestion: difficulty!
Finding: not so difficult
Phillips 2006,
Language
Slide54Distinct Loci of Uncertainty
WH Dependencies
Who
did John say that Mary saw?
Mali
zhidao
Yuehan mai-le shenme?M know Y buy-perf what?PiecesScope – direct vs. indirect question
Thematic role – agent, patient, goal, etc. of some clauseIntervening structure
Slide55Distinct Loci of Uncertainty
WH comprehension - English
Listener encounters
wh
-phrase. Knows scope, not thematic role.
Attempts to form dependency ASAP.
E.g.,
Active Interpretation(Garnsey et al. 1989, Traxler & Pickering 1996)How many students did the school expand the classroom for __?
WH comprehension - MandarinListener encounters wh-phrase. Knows thematic role, not scope. Attempts to form dependency ASAP. (Xiang et al. 2015)Mali zhidao
Yuehan mai-le shenme?M know Y buy-perf what?Mali xiangzhidao Yuehan
mai-le shenme?M wonder Y buy-perf what
Slide56Distinct Loci of Uncertainty
WH production
Speaker knows scope
and
thematic role
of
wh
-dependency, not intervening structure.So can be surprised if structure involves islandE.g., Resumptive Pronoun Elicitation
(Swets & Ferreira 2003) …This is a donkey that I don‘t know where
it lives.*This is a donkey that I don‘t know where __ lives.
Swets
& Ferreira 2003
Slide57Active Maintenance
‘Active dependency formation’
Wh
-phrase: create gap site as soon as possible
Cataphoric pronoun: link to antecedent as soon as possible
Filled-gap effect: My brother wanted to know who Ruth will bring
us
home to __. Plausibility effect: That’s the city that the author wrote about __.Long distance category-based diagnostics persist plausibility-based diagnostics fail
plausibility detected in passive dependency formation discard detail from active memoryNote 1. distance ≠ structure 2. active memory ≠ active dependency formation
Slide58How
many
students
did
the
school
enlarge
the
classroom
for?
How many students did the school enlarge the classroom for __?
One way of testing time course of question interpretation
!!
Slide59us
My brother wanted to know
if
Ruth will bring us home to
Mom at Christmas
GAP
Active Gap Creation
Readers slow down upon encountering a pronoun where a gap was expected
.
Slowdown
970 ms
755 ms
Stowe 1986, Crain & Fodor 1985
My brother wanted to know
who
Ruth
will
bring
home to
___ at Christmas.
Structural commitments are made BEFORE critical bottom-up input is received
.
Slide60Active creation of filler-gap dependencies
Highly robust generalization
Filled gap effects (Crain & Fodor 1985; Stowe 1986; et seq.)
Plausibility manipulations (Boland et al. 1990;
Traxler
& Pickering 1996)
Cross-modal priming (
Nicol & Swinney 1989)Eye-movements in visual world paradigm (Sussman & Sedivy 2003)
Electrophysiological indices (Garnsey et al. 1989; Kaan et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2005 etc.)Wh-dependency formation occurs at least as soon as an appropriate verb is encountered
… but this does not bear on issues of transformational vs. non-transformational approaches
Slide61The businessman knew which
customer
the secretary called …
The businessman knew which
article
the secretary
called
…
The producers knew that the actress wished that the host would tell …
The producers knew which jokes the actress wished that the host would
tell
…
Garnsey,
Tanenhaus, & Chapman, 1989, JPR
Phillips, Kazanina, &
Abada, 2005; cf. Kaan
et al. 2000,
Fiebach
et al., 2002
N400
P600
ERP Measures of Completing
Filler-Gap Dependencies
Slide62Cross-modal Priming
Slide63Cross-Modal Priming
The guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the reception
(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)
Slide64Cross-Modal Priming
The guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the reception
WINE
SHIP
(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)
Slide65Cross-Modal Priming
The guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the reception
WINE
SHIP
(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)
Slide66Cross-Modal Priming
The guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the reception
WINE
SHIP
(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)
Slide67Cross-Modal Priming
The guests drank vodka, sherry and port at the reception
WINE
SHIP
(Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1979)
Slide682. Reactivation Studies
Which boy did the old man from Osaka meet at the station?
(e.g. Nicol & Swinney 1989, Bever & McElree 1988, MacDonald 1989)
Slide692. Reactivation Studies
Which boy did the old man from Osaka meet at the station?
boy
girl
boy
girl
faster decision
same speed
(e.g. Nicol & Swinney 1989, Bever & McElree 1988, MacDonald 1989)
Slide70Maintenance vs. RetrievalSome evidence suggests active maintenance of information
Some evidence suggests retrieval of filler information
Focus of attention is limited
Resolving the conflict …
Matt Wagers, UC Santa Cruz
Slide71(Wagers & Phillips, 2014)
Slide72(Wagers & Phillips, 2014)
Slide73(Wagers & Phillips, 2014)
Slide74(Wagers & Phillips, 2014)
Slide75(Wagers & Phillips, 2014)
Slide76(Wagers & Phillips, 2014)
Slide77Accommodating Capacity Limits
“The amount of information that can be concurrently processed is clearly limited (Broadbent, 1958), but the exact nature of these limitations for processing linguistic structure remains poorly understood. […]
“An idea with deep roots in psycholinguistics is that the capacity bottleneck causes the chunking of an expression into its major constituents, a notion which motivated the click dislocation experiments of the 1960s (
Bever
,
Lackner
& Kirk, 1969). […] Put another way, the span of concurrent processing limits the breadth of information than can be represented at any given moment.”
“An alternative view, that is consistent with our proposal for processing filler-gap dependencies, is that limits on concurrent processing exert their influence primarily on the depth of information that can be represented at any given moment. Instead of maintaining all the features of a given constituent with full precision, the comprehender may choose to discard some features from focal attention, in order to accommodate information from other constituents.” (Wagers & Phillips, 2014)
Slide78More on Active SearchTiming
& representations
Linear vs. structural locality
Island sensitivity
Hyperactive
Slide79Core Question
How do we encode and navigate structured mental representations?
Structures are easy to draw. But what kind of mental object are they?
Linguistic arguments: relational notions like
c
-command are pervasive.
In some architectures it is trivial to capture relational notions like
c
-command.
In other architectures it is not trivial.
C-command is not content“E c
-commands H” is not an inherent property of node E, that exists independent of H’s presence
Slide80Binding vs. Coreference
No cyclist
thought the spectators loved
him
.
The spectators [that
no cyclist acknowledged] thought the people loved
him.The cyclist
thought the spectators loved him. The spectators [that
the cyclist acknowledged] thought the people loved him.
(Kush, Lidz, & Phillips, 2015)
Slide81Binding vs. Coreference
2 x 2 Design:
GenderMatch
x
Referentiality
The troop leaders . . .
Match-Quant [that
no girl
scout had respect for] Mismatch-Quant [that no boy
scout had respect for] Match-Ref [that the girl scout
had respect for] Mismatch-Ref [that the boy scout had respect for]
had scolded her after the incident …(Kush, Lidz, & Phillips, 2015)
Slide82Binding vs. Coreference n = 30
*
n.s
.
*
n.s
.
C-command gates access to antecedents in retrieval
But what about Principle C effects in retrieval?
(Kush, Lidz, & Phillips, 2015)
Slide83Intervention
John found a picture of himself in the cabinet.
*John found Mary’s picture of himself in the cabinet.
Zhangsan
zhidao
Lisi piping-le
ziji.Z. knows L. criticized self*Zhangsan zhidao wo piping-le ziji.
Z. knows I criticized selfNobody said that Bill would ever vote for Clinton.*Nobody said that everybody would ever vote for Clinton.What do you know that Sally likes __?*What do you know who likes __?
Slide84Mandarin Long-Distance Reflexives
Lisi
nongshang
-le ziji Lisi harm-
perf self“Lisi harmed herself” Zhangsan shuo
Lisi nongshang-le ziji Zhangsan says Lisi harm-perf
self“Zhangsan says that Lisi harmed him / herself” Antecedent for ziji must be(
i) a subject(ii) animate(iii) c-commanding
Slide85LD antecedent:
Coach Zhang
say [that report [..] underestimate
ziji
]
Local antecedent: Auto-biography say [
Coach Zhang
[..] underestimate
ziji
]
No antecedent: Auto-biography say [that report [..] underestimate ziji]
+ control conditions without
ziji.
Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff (MR-SAT)
Slide86ziji
conditions
[common scaling of
d
’ based on asymptote, for visualization of dynamics]
control conditions
(identical words, except for
ziji
)
(Dillon et al. 2014)
local
long-distance
Timing advantage for local antecedent
serial access to antecedents
Slide87Speeded Acceptability: Ever
No authors
[that the critics recommended] have
ever
received praise for a best-selling novel.
The authors [that
no critics
recommended] have
ever
received praise for a best-selling novel.The authors [that the critics recommended] have ever
received praise for a best-selling novel.Parker & Phillips 2013
Effects of Timing - Negative Polarity Items