Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:43:08.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Short-Term and Working Memory Capacity and the Language Device

Chunking and Parsing Complexity

from Part III - Linguistic Theories and Frameworks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2022

By
Bingfu Lu  and
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Get access

Summary

Many general linguistic theories and language processing frameworks have assumed that language processing is largely a chunking procedure and that it is underpinned and constrained by our memory limitations. Despite this general consensus, the distinction between short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) limitations as they relate to language processing has remained elusive. To resolve this issue, we propose an integrated memory- and chunking-based metric of parsing complexity, in which STM limitations of 7 ± 2 (Miller, 1956a) are relevant to the Momentary Chunk Number (MCN), while WM limitations of 4 ± 1 (Cowan, 2001) are relevant to the Mean Momentary Chunk Number (MMCN). Examples of concrete calculations of our new metric are presented vis-à-vis Liu’s MDD metric and Hawkins’ IC-to-word Ratio metric. Related methodology issues are also discussed. We conclude the paper by echoing some recently repeated calls -(O'Grady, 2012 & 2017; Gómez-Rodríguez et al., 2019; Wen, 2019) to include STM and WM limitations as part and parcel of the language device (LD; cf. Chomsky, 1957) in that their impacts are ubiquitous and permeating in all essential linguistic domains ranging from phonology to grammar, discourse comprehension and production.

Keywords

memory capacityshort-term memory limitationsworking memory limitationsthe magical number 7chunkingMomentary Chunk Number (MCN)Mean MCN (MMCN)Mean Dependency Distance (MDD)Word/IC ratioparsing complexitythe language device
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language , pp. 393 - 418
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Andrade, J. (2001). Working memory in perspective. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S. E., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–30.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. A. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2012). As time goes by: Temporal constraints in working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(6): 413–419.Google Scholar
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2015). Working memory: Loss and reconstruction. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. Cognition and the development of language. ed. by Hayes, John R., 279–362. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2013). The evolution of working memory. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Suppl. 2), 10371–10378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, B., Ning, A., Bi, H., & Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129(1), 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barrier. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition, and processing. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (2007). Variation in working memory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research, 169, 323–338.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1158–1170. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2006). The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 413–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dryer, M. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:81–139.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Chunking. In Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S. (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–147). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, J. (1984). Duoxiang NP ju [Multiple NP Sentences]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 1, 28–34.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2017). Optimization models of natural communication. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2486Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., & Gómez-Rodríguez, C. (2019). Anti-dependency distance minimization in short sequences. A graph theoretic approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 28(1), 50–76.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies.) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts–Amherst).Google Scholar
Futrell, R. (2017). Memory and locality in natural language (Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. (2015). Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10336–10341.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, language, brain 2000, 95–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., & Levy, R. P. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 389–407.Google Scholar
Gobet, F., & Clarkson, G. (2004). Chunks in expert memory: Evidence for the magical number four…or is it two? Memory, 12, 732–747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000530Google Scholar
Gomez-Rodriguez, C., Christiansen, M., & Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2019). Memory limitations are hidden in grammar. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06629. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XHRIYXCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Christiansen, M. H., & Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2020, April 14–17). Cognitive constraints built into formal grammars: Implications for language evolution. In Ravignani, A. et al. (Eds.), The evolution of language: proceedings of the 13th international conference (EvoLang13). Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Hakes, D. T. (1972). Effects of reducing complement construction on sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 11, 278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hocket, C. (1961). Linguistic elements and their relation. Language, 37, 29–53.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1995). Word meaning. Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language, 87, 586–624.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–46.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H. (2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(2), 159–191Google Scholar
Logie, R. H. (1996). The seven ages of working memory. In Richardson, J. T. E., Engle, R. W., Hasher, L., Logie, R. H., Stoltzfus, E. R., & Zacks, R. T. (Eds.), Working memory and human cognition (pp. 31–65). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Logie, R. H., Camos, V., & Cowan, N. (2021). Working memory: State of the science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lu, Bingfu. (1983). Wuxian digui de tiaojian he youxian qiefen [The conditions of infinite recursion and finite segmentation]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Learning], 1, 23–29.Google Scholar
Lu, Bingfu. (1993). Hexin Tuidao Yufa [A head-oriented grammar]. Shanghai Education Press.Google Scholar
Lu, Bingfu. (2001). What is the chunk in linguistic construction? Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science: 452–457. University of Science and Technology of China Press.Google Scholar
Lu, Bingfu. (2009). The parallelism between NPs and clauses in terms of pragmatic effects on word order, Cahiers Linguistique–Asie Orientale 38(2), 177–219.Google Scholar
Lu, Q., Xu, C., & Liu, H. (2016). Can chunking reduce syntactic complexity of natural languages? Complexity, 21, 33–41Google Scholar
Majerus, S. (2013). Language repetition and short-term memory: An integrative framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7, 357. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00357Google Scholar
Miller, G. (1956a). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
Miller, G. (1956b). Human memory and the storage of information. IRE Transaction on Information Theory, 2(3), 129–137.Google Scholar
Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Gattei, C., Sigman, M., & Kliegl, R. (2015). Working memory differences in long-distance dependency resolution. Frontiers in Psychology (6), 312.Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2013). Evidence against decay in verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 380–411.Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2014). Further evidence against decay in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2012). Three factors in the design and acquisition of language. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 493–499.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2015). Processing determinism. Language Learning, 65(1), 6–32.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2017). Working memory and language: From phonology to grammar. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(06), 1340–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, L. J., Genesee, F., Delcenserie, A., & Morgan, G. (2017). Variations in phonological working memory: Linking early language experiences and language learning outcomes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1265–1302.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (1999). English expletive constructions are not inflected. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(3), 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, S. R., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 965–978.Google Scholar
Waugh, N. C., & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, R. S. (1947). Immediate constituent, Language, 23, 81–118.Google Scholar
Wen, Z. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Towards an integrated approach. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wen, Z. (2019). Working memory as language aptitude: The Phonological/Executive Model. In Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedron, A., Li, S., & Sparks, R. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 187–214). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z., & Li, S. (2019). Working memory in L2 learning and processing. In Schwieter, J. & Benati, A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 365–389). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. H. (1961). Depth hypothesis. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, 11, 130–138Google Scholar
Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Hafner.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×