Memory & Language

1. 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

2. Memory Mechanisms Encoding and accessing information in (multiple) structured representations

3. Is there a green square?

4. Is there a green square?

5. Is there a green square?

6. Is there a green square?

7. Is there a green square?

8. Is there a green square?

9. Is there a green square?

10. Is there a green square?

11. Is there a green square?

12. Is there a green square?

13. Is 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)

16. Levels of Analysis Structural alternatives … how to identify them… how to implement them

17. Content-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 access • Cues resonate with items in passive memory • Parallel access to all items at once • Noise yields partial match Broadbent 1958; Wickelgren et al., 1980; Garavan, 1998; Cowan, 2001; McElree, 2006; Verhaegen & Basak, 2007; Jonides et al., 2008

18. Agreement attraction parallel, cue-guided search In content-addressable memory serial, structure-guided search S S Subj VP Subj VP the key PP the key PP V V to the cells were to the cells were 0 0 0 1 +plural +subject 1 0 0 0 Wagers, Lau, & Phillips, 2009

19. Agreement Attraction Agreement is disrupted by local and non-local lures The key to the cabinetsare 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.

20. Size Doesn’t Matter Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff (SAT)

21. SAT: 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.

22. Evidence from memory dynamics Probe recognition – SAT response-signal taskWickelgren, et al., 1980, McElree & Dosher, 1989 talk – yard – boat – store - tales SLOOOOOWWWW FAST

23. McElree, Foraker, & Dyer 2003 “Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension”, J. Mem. Lang.

24. Distance 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

25. Lewis et al. 2006

26. Memory-access Model: ACT-R • Key features • Parallel-access  time-constant retrieval • Content-addressable  susceptible to partial-match interference • Limited-size buffers  ~ restricted focus of attention; const. shunting Some content cues +plural +masculine +animate +quantificational subject main clause current clause etc. (Lewis, Vasishth, & van Dyke 2006, TICS; cf. McElree 2006)

27. VP-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. Antecedent distance effect (Expt 1) distance affects asymptote,but not dynamics Martin & McElree 2008

28. VP-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 not no effect of complexityon dynamics or asymptote Antecedent distance effect (Expt 1) distance affects asymptote,but not dynamics Martin & McElree 2008

29. VP-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 not no effect of complexityon 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. Martin & McElree 2008

30. What 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].

31. Agreement Illusions Not only do we produce agreement errors – we generally fail to notice them “The key to the cell unsurprisingly were rusty …” “The key to the cells 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 … (Bock & Miller 1991; Pearlmutter et al. 1999; Deevy et al. 1998; Staub 2009; Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009; Eberhard et al. 2005)

32. “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)

33. What causes agreement attraction? • Encoding: hallucinating plural subject • Access: misretrieving irrelevant noun 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 Wagers, Lau, & Phillips 2009, J Mem Lang

34. Two ways to search structures in memory serial, structure-guided search parallel, cue-guided (direct) access in content-addressable memory S S Subj VP Subj VP the key PP the key PP V V to the cells were to the cells were 0 0 0 1 +plural structure-sensitive, avoids interference susceptible to interference +subject 1 0 0 0 slow, esp. for longer relations fast, even for longer relations McElree et al. 2003; Lewis et al. 2006; Martin & McElree 2008, 2009; Wagers, Lau, & Phillips, 2009

35. Argument: Everybody does it PLThe musicians who the reviewer praises/praise so highly SG The musician who the reviewer praises/praise so highly No indication in RT differences.

36. Argument: Timing Lago et al. 2015, J Mem Lang

37. Argument: Timing Lago et al. 2015, J Mem Lang

38. Argument: Cross-language Parallels • Comprehension: English, Spanish, Russian, … • Production: English, German, French, Slovene, Russian, Basque, Spanish, Dutch, … • Islands: easy to test intuitive judgments in many languagesAgreement: easy-ish to listen for attraction errors hard to identify comprehension profiles ( experiment)

39. Same 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 … illusion 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 … Both processes require access to same element -- the subject of the same clause. no illusion Dillon, Mishler, Sloggett, & Phillips, 2013

40. Constraints  Cues? A pronoun is an instruction to find something in memory E.g., himself • Content = 3rd person singular masculine • Location = subject of same clause Constraints 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)

41. But production …  Kandel et al. 2019

42. Two Russian Puzzles #1: Accidental Syncretism (Slioussar 2015) komnatadljavecherinki roomNOM.SG for party{GEN.SG|NOM.PL} komnatadljavecherinok roomNOM.SG for party{GEN.PL}

43. Two Russian Puzzles #2: Immunity to Attraction (Slioussar & Malko 2016) oknovodvor windowNEUT to yardMASC Vyxod v pole exitMASC to fieldNEUT

44. Assignment #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

45. Memory 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 • Challenges • Linguistic: relational properties • Linguistic: intervention • Linguistic: combinatorics • Empirical: selective fallibility • Empirical: active processing • Empirical: response bias

46. Interference & 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

47. Active Processing • Keeping track of unfulfilled needs • What is tracked, what counts as success? • Representational debates • Respecting constraints • Source of constraints • Different loci of uncertainty

48. Super-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 capacity • Island: 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? ±Length ±Complex Subject ±Both Sprouse, Wagers, & Phillips 2012, Language

49. size of island effect island violation Sprouse, Wagers, & Phillips 2012, Language

50. 4 island types, 2 memory tasks (serial recall, n-back), n = 315 island severity vs. memory capacity capacity differences account for 0% - 3% of variance Memory capacity (non-)correlations Sprouse, Wagers, & Phillips 2012, Language