Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:58:39.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competing complexity metrics and adults' production of complex sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Hintat Cheung  and
Susan Kemper
Hintat Cheung
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Susan Kemper*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
Susan Kemper, 1082 Robert Dole Human Development Center, Child Language, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The adequacy of 11 metrics for measuring linguistic complexity was evaluated by applying each metric to language samples obtained from 30 different adult speakers, aged 60–90 years. The analysis then determined how well each metric indexed age-group differences in complexity. In addition, individual differences in the complexity of adults' language were examined as a function of these complexity metrics using structural equation modeling techniques. In a follow-up study, judges listened to sentences in noise, rated their comprehensibility, and attempted to recall each sentence verbatim. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to evaluate the structural equation model, derived from the language samples, with respect to sentence comprehensibility and recall. While most of the metrics provided an adequate account of age-group and individual differences in complexity, the amount of embedding and the type of embedding proved to predict how easily sentences are understood and how accurately they are recalled.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 53 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS: Structural Equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., & Weinberg, A. S. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Botel, M., & Granowsky, A. (1972). A formula for measuring syntactic complexity: A directional effect. Elementary Education, 49, 513–516.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (Ed.). (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P. M., Lee, H., & Zoh, M. H. (1986). Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses: Universal principles and language-specific realizations. Cognition, 24, 225–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crain, S., & Schankweiler, D. (1988). Snytactic complexity and reading acquisition. In Davison, A. & Green, G. (Eds.), Critical approaches to readability (pp. 167–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Ability, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Tardiff, T. (1987). Working memory and reading skill reexamined. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 491–508). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fay, D. (1980). Performing transformations. In Cole, R. L. (Ed.), Perception and production of fluent speech (pp. 441–468). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D. R., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. M. (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computation, and theoretical perspectives (pp.129–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1988). The study of linguistic complexity. In Davison, A. & Green, G. (Eds.), Critical approaches to readability (pp. 193–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, 193–226). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hsu, J. R., Cairns, H. S., & Fiengo, R. W. (1985). The development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition, 20, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, R. (1977). Bar- syntax A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemper, S. (1986). Imitation of complex syntactic constructions by elderly adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemper, S. (1987a). Life-span changes in syntactic complexity. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemper, S. (1987b). Syntactic complexity and the recall of prose by middle-aged and elderly adults. ExperimentalAging Research, 13, 47–52.Google Scholar
Kemper, S. (1988). Geriatric psycholinguistics: Syntactic limitations of oral and written language. In Light, L. & Burke, D. (Eds.), Language and memory in old age (pp. 58–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemper, S., Kynette, D., Rash, S., Sprott, R., & O'Brien, K. (1989). Life-span changes to adults' language: Effects of memory and genre. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemper, S., & Rash, S. (1988). Speech and writing across the life-span. In Gruneberg, M. M., Morris, P. E., & Sykes, R. N. (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 107–112). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kemper, S., Rash, S. R., Kynette, D., & Norman, S. (1990). Telling stories: The structure of adults' narratives. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. M. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of the propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D., (1978). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In Nilsson, L. G. (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research (pp. 329–365). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klee, T., & Fitzgerald, M. D. (1985). The relation between grammatical development and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 12, 251–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kynette, D.M, & Kemper, S. (1986). Aging and the loss of grammatical forms: A cross-sectional study of language performance. Language and Communication, 6, 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex ideas. In Moore, T. (Ed.), Cognitive psychology and the acquisition of language (pp. 169–186). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, M. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1989). The syntactic phenomena of English (Vols. 1–2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (1981). The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 24, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, S., & Abbeduto, L. (1987). Indicators of linguistic competence in the peer group conversational behavior of mildly retarded adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salthouse, T. A., Babcock, R. L., & Shaw, R. J. (1991). Effects of adult age on structural and operational capacities in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 6, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Index of Productive Syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1986). Language mechanisms and reading disorder: A modular approach. Cognition, 24, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E., & Grimshaw, J. (1987). Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition, 27, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. S. (1988). Factors of linguistic complexity and performance. In Davison, A. & Green, G. (Eds.), Critical approaches to readability (pp. 247–280). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S., & van, Kleeck A. (1986). Linguistic complexity and performance. Journal of Child Language, 13, 398–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, A., & Greene, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base (Technical Report). University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Watt, W. C. (1970). On two hypotheses concerning psycholinguistics. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 137–220). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. (1960). A model and a hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444–466.Google Scholar