We report results from two eye-movement experiments that examined how differences in working memory (WM) capacity affect readers' application of structural constraints on reflexive anaphor resolution during sentence comprehension. We examined whether binding Principle A, a syntactic constraint on the interpretation of reflexives, is reducible to a memory friendly “recency” strategy, and whether WM capacity influences the degree to which readers create anaphoric dependencies ruled out by binding theory. Our results indicate that low and high WM span readers applied Principle A early during processing. However, contrary to previous findings, low span readers also showed immediate intrusion effects of a linearly closer but structurally inaccessible competitor antecedent. We interpret these findings as indicating that although the relative prominence of potential antecedents in WM can affect online anaphor resolution, Principle A is not reducible to a processing or linear distance based “least effort” constraint.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cunnings et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: