Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки The Advantage Of SCH727965

(2010)��it is possible to adapt the Pruning Hypothesis to the particular properties of the DLT. We will not dwell further on this issue because resource-based accounts of capacity limitations in general and the concept of trace decay have fallen into disreputation, both for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramoplanin Ramoplanin] theoretical reasons (e.g., Navon, 1984, MacDonald and Christiansen, 2002) and for lack of empirical support (e.g., Oberauer and Kliegl, 2001). Two influential alternatives to the resource-based view are the interference account and the experience-based account (further alternatives are discussed in Oberauer and Kliegl, 2001). In the next section, we propose an explanation of the missing-VP effect that is based on the interference account. The experience-based account is discussed in the final section2. 3. An interference account of the missing-VP effect  The interference account is based on the observation that the retrieval of material from working memory becomes less reliable in the presence of similar material. In order to apply the interference  account to the process of sentence parsing, we have to take a closer look at the steps that lead to the integration of new words into the unfolding syntactic representation. A crucial first step for successful integration is the retrieval of the correct attachment site for the word that is to be integrated. If the retrieval cues used for this purpose match more than a single attachment site, finding the proper place for attaching the next word can become more difficult. While interference from similar items can make the integration of new items more difficult, whether interference does indeed occur depends on the particular syntactic configuration. Consider first the situation that obtains in sentences with double center-embedding at the point where the verb of the most deeply embedded relative clause has to be integrated,  that is, met in sentence (7). The syntactic representation built up to this point contains three clauses which still need a VP, namely the matrix clause S1 and the two relative clauses S2 and S3. Despite the existence of three potential attachment sites, the integration of the verb met into the embedded relative clause will not be disturbed by the presence of other potential attachment sites. The reason for this is that the most recently read subject is in the focus of attention and therefore immediately available for integration (see McElree, 2006, for the notion of focal attention as used in the memory literature). The situation changes when the parser encounters the verb of the higher relative clause, trusts in sentence (5). After the most deeply embedded relative clause has been processed, the ongoing phrase-structure representation still contains two possible attachment sites for a verb.