Do Marked Topics Enhance Memory?

Hadar Netz; Zohar Eviatar; Ron Kuzar

doi:10.2478/v10015-011-0023-z

Authors

Hadar Netz Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Zohar Eviatar University of Haifa
Ron Kuzar University of Haifa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0023-z

Abstract

We examined the effects of markedness, the deviation from the canonical Subject-Verb-Object structure in English, on the memory of listeners for the topic of the sentence. We used three marked topic constructions: Left-Dislocation, Object-Fronting, and Subject-Marking. Sentences with these structures were inserted as the 6^th item in lists of 12 canonical sentences. In all sentences the topic was the name of a man. We measured recall of the critical name. The results revealed that topics of Left-Dislocated sentences were recalled more than topics of the other constructions, with topics of Object-Fronting sentences recalled the least. We briefly discuss how sentence processing procedures might give rise to these effects.

Author Biographies

Hadar Netz, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Hadar Netz has recently completed a Fulbright Post-Doctoral Fellowship in the Center for Gifted Education, the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA. She is currently a Kreitman Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel. Her research focuses on the classroom discourse of gifted pupils. Her additional research interests include information structure, discourse analysis, and psycholinguistics.

Zohar Eviatar, University of Haifa

Zohar Eviatar is Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology, the University of Haifa, Israel. She is interested in hemispheric asymmetry for higher cognitive functions with a focus on reading in different languages, and hemispheric functioning in clinical groups with social and linguistic pathology such as Williams syndrome, autism, and nonverbal learning disabilities.

Ron Kuzar, University of Haifa

Ron Kuzar is Senior Lecturer at the Department of English Language and Literature, the University of Haifa, Israel. His research interests include cognitive linguistic theory, syntax, information structure, and the linguistic encoding of cultural and political ideologies.

References

Alba, J. W. and L. Hasher. 1983. Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin 93(2): 203–231.
Google Scholar

Almor, A. and P. D. Eimas. 2008. Focus on noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(2): 201–225.
Google Scholar

Baars, B. J. and S. Franklin. 2003. How conscious experience and working memory interact. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(4): 166–172.
Google Scholar

Bahlmann, J., A. Rodriguez-Fornells, M. Rotte and T. F. Münte. 2007. An fMRI study of canonical and noncanonical word order in German. Human Brain Mapping 28: 940–949.
Google Scholar

Bever, T. G. and D. J. Townsend. 2001. Some sentences on our consciousness of sentences. In E. Dupoux (ed) Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press: 143–155.
Google Scholar

Birch, Stacy L. and Susan M. Garnsey. 1995. The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 232–267.
Google Scholar

Birner, B. J. and G. L. Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Carreiras, M., M. A. Gernsbacher and V. Villa. 1995. The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2(1): 124–129.
Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Chang, F. R. 1980. Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference. Memory & Cognition 8(1): 58–64.
Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In W. Chafe (ed) The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex: 203–274.
Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–855.
Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. 2000. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. R., R. R. Hunt and E. Clark. 2000. Is perceptual salience needed in explanation of the isolation effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 26(3): 649–657.
Google Scholar

Eysenck, M. W. and M. T. Keane. 2005. Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, 5th edition. New York: Psychology Press.
Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. and M. Garrett. 1967. Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psychophysics 2(7): 289–296.
Google Scholar

Geluykens, R. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-Dislocation in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A. and D. J. Hargreaves. 1992. The privilege of primacy: Experimental data and cognitive explanations. In D. L. Payne (ed) Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 83–116.
Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A. and J. D. Jescheniak. 1995. Cataphoric devices in spoken discourse. Cognitive Psychology 29: 24–58.
Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A. and S. Shroyer. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory & Cognition 17: 536–540.
Google Scholar

Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.Givón, T. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds) Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 59–115.
Google Scholar

Green, R.T. 1956. Surprise as a factor in the von Restorff Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 52(5): 340–344.
Google Scholar

Gregory, M. L. and L. A. Michaelis. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33(11): 1665–1706.
Google Scholar

Hunt, R. R. 1995. The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2(1): 105–112.
Google Scholar

Hunt, R. R. and C. A. Lamb. 2001. What causes the isolation effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6): 1359–1366.
Google Scholar

Jansma, J. M., N. F. Ramsey, H. A. Slagter and R. S. Kahn. 2001. Functional anatomical correlates of controlled and automatic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13: 730–743. Jenkins, W. O. and L. Postman. 1948. Isolation and ‘spread effect’ in serial learning. American Journal of Psychology 61: 214–221. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

MacDonald, M. C. 1989. Priming effects from gaps to antecedents. Language & Cognitive Processes 4(1): 35–56.
Google Scholar

Netz, H. and R. Kuzar. 2007. Three marked theme constructions in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 39(2): 305–335.
Google Scholar

Netz, H. and R. Kuzar. 2010. Three effect of marked topic on memory in Hebrew and English. Languages in Contrast 9(2): 267–283.
Google Scholar

Prince, E. F. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to Left-Dislocation and Topicalization. In P. W. Culicover and L. McNally (eds) Syntax and Semantics 29, The Limits of Syntax. New York: Academic Press: 281–302.
Google Scholar

Schlesewsky, M., G. Fanselow, R. Kliegl and J. Krems. 2000. The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny (eds) German Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 65–94.
Google Scholar

Schmidt, S. R. 1991. Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory & Cognition 19(6): 523–542.
Google Scholar

von Restorff, H.1933. Über die wirkung von bereichsbildungen im spurenfeld / The effects of field formation in the trace field. Psychologische Forschung 18: 299-342.
Google Scholar

Wallace, W. P. 1965. Review of the historical, empirical, and theoretical status of the von Restorff phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin 63(6): 410–424.
Google Scholar

Wright, S. and T. Givón. 1987. The pragmatics of indefinite reference: Quantified text-based studies. Studies in Language 11: 1–33.
Google Scholar