Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship between working memory capacity, bilingualism, and ambiguous relative clause attachment

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Working memory (WM) capacity has been shown to influence how readers resolve syntactic ambiguities. Building on the work of Swets et al. (2007, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136[1], 64–81), the goal of the present study was to assess the effects of working memory and language proficiency on first language (L1) relative clause attachment decisions across three different language samples: English monolinguals, L1–L2 Spanish–English heritage bilinguals, and L1–L2 Mandarin–English bilinguals. Binomial logistic regression analyses demonstrated that low WM span is associated with a preference to attach ambiguous relative clauses higher in the syntactic structure, as reported by Swets et al. (2007), and contrary to a recency strategy. We also observed that proficiency in L1 and L2 have little effect, suggesting that relative clause attachment preferences primarily reflect the properties of the language and the working memory capacity of the comprehender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Filler sentences are frequently used in psycholinguistic experiments to sustain participant engagement, mitigate potential fatigue or disinterest, and minimize the likelihood of demand characteristics influencing participant behavior.

References

  • Ackerman, L. (2019). Syntactic and cognitive issues in investigating gendered coreference. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), Article 117.

  • Bidaoui, A., Foote, R., & Abunasser, M. (2016). Relative clause attachment in native and L2 Arabic 1. International Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 2, 75–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentences parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49, 664–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22, 77–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, D., Rochon, E., & Waters, G. S. (1992). Articulatory and phonological determinants of word length effects in span tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(2), 177–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1), 91–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 826–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, M., Salillas, E., & Barber, H. (2004). Event-related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish. Brain Research, 20, 98–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Champely, S., Ekstrom, C., Dalgaard, P., Gill, J., Weibelzahl, S., Anandkumar, A., . . . De Rosario-Martinez, H. (2020). pwr: Basic functions for power analysis (Computer software). Retrieved October 13, 2023, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr

  • Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & DeBaecke, C. (2002). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 879–896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, T., DeBaecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Vonk, W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 453–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussias, P. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in l2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 529–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussias, P. E. (2004). Parsing a first language like a second: The erosion of L1 parsing strategies in Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3), 355–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussias, P., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101–116.

  • Ehrlich, K. (1999). Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY (pp. 18–20). CUNY.

  • Engle, R., Tuholski, S., Laughlin, J., & Conway, A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Felser, C., Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 11(3), 127–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, E. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. John Benjamins Publishers.

  • Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 348–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Yang, Z. (2019). The problem of comprehension in psycholinguistics. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 485–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1998). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 339–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (2002). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In Proc. the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference. Aix-en-Provence.

  • Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 277–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. Advances in Psychology, 134, 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Watson, D., Grodner, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 313–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboy, E., Sopena, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preference in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gollan, T. H., Weissberger, G. H., Runnqvist, E., Montoya, R. I., & Cera, C. M. (2012). Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 594–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentenial complexity. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez-Ziardegi, E., Carreiras, M., & Laka, I. (2004, March). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in Basque and Spanish. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.

  • Hemforth, B., Koneiczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Modifier attachment: Relative clauses and coordinations. In B. Hemforth, B. & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing: Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (Vol. 24, pp. 161–186). Springer.

  • Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90(1), 3–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, A., Fraundork, S., Lee, E., & Watson, D. (2018). Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions? Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 155–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jegerski, J. (2018). Sentence processing in Spanish as a heritage language: A self-paced reading study of relative clause attachment. Language Learning, 68(3), 598–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegerski, J., VanPatten, B., & Keating, G. (2016). Relative clause attachment preferences in early and late bilinguals. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 81–98). John Benjamins.

  • Just, M., & Varma, S. (2002). A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen. Psychological Review, 109, 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M., Hambrick, D., Tuholski, S., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T., & Engle, R. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, M., Samadi, E., & Babaii, E. (2021). Relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in L1-Persian learners of L2 English: The effects of semantic priming and proficiency. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(3), 153–185. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2020.13469.1666

  • Keating, G. D., Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (2016). Online processing of subject pronouns in monolingual and heritage bilingual speakers of Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotek, H., Babinski, S., Dockum, R., & Geissler, C. (2020). Gender representation in linguistic example sentences. LSA Proceedings, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4723

  • Kwon, N., Ong, D., Chen, H., & Zhang, A. (2019). The role of animacy and structural information in relative clause attachment: evidence from Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 419070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P., Zhang, F., Yu, A., & Zhao, X. (2020). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ 3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 938–944.

  • MacDonald, M., Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoodi, M. H., Sheykholmoluki, H., Zoghipaydar, M. R., & Shahsavari, S. (2022). Working memory capacity and relative clause attachment preference of Persian EFL learners: Does segmentation play any role? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51, 683–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing. University of Texas at Austin, Center for Cognitive Science.

  • Miyao, M., & Omaki, A. (2006). No ambiguity about it: Korean learners of Japanese have a clear attachment preference. Boston University.

  • Montrul, S. (2006). On the bilingual competence of Spanish heritage speakers: Syntax, lexical semantics and processing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(1), 37–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, B., Grison, S., Gao, X., Christianson, K., Morrow, D., & Stine-Morrow, E. (2014). Aging and individual differences in binding during sentence understanding: Evidence from temporary and global syntactic attachment ambiguities. Cognition, 130, 157–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlmutter, N., & MacDonald, M. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory Language, 34, 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 358–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, X. (2006). Late assignment of syntax theory: Evidence from Chinese and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter.

  • Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: a psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, R., MacDonald, M., & Gil, M. (1999). Pragmatic constraint on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1347–1365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. (2007). Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 1107–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. (2009). A hierarchical linear modeling analysis of working memory and implicit prosody in the resolution of adjunct attachment ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(5), 491–509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M., Pickering, M., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., & Engle, R. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagar, D., Pynte, J., & Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first pass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A—Human Experimental Psychology, 50, 421–438.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Institute of Health grant R01 HD100516 awarded to F.F. We would like to thank our undergraduate research assistants, especially Ariel Ye’s contributions. We also thank our team of stimulus translators and cross-checkers: Teresa Gálvez-Grieve Cotter, Fina Lee, and Harvey Qiu.

Funding

This project was supported by the National Institute of Health grant R01, HD100516, awarded to Fernanda Ferreira.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Beverly T. Cotter & Fernanda Ferreira

Authors
  1. Beverly T. Cotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernanda Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beverly T. Cotter.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Approval was obtained by the ethics committee of the University of California, Davis. The procedures used in this study adhere to the principles of the Declaration of

Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the data in the study.

Open practices statement

All study materials, data, and analyses codes are available publicly online (https://osf.io/m5cvx/). This study was not preregistered.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cotter, B.T., Ferreira, F. The relationship between working memory capacity, bilingualism, and ambiguous relative clause attachment. Mem Cogn (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01561-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01561-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation