Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996).

TLDR

Just and Carpenter’s 1992 capacity theory posits a linguistic working memory separate from linguistic knowledge, a view that Waters and Caplan’s 1996 critique also maintained. The authors present an alternative account motivated by a connectionist approach to language comprehension. They argue that processing capacity emerges from network architecture and experience, not as a primitive that can vary independently. Individual differences in comprehension arise from interactions of biological factors and language experience rather than a separate working memory capacity, and this alternative offers a superior explanation of results previously attributed to such a capacity.

Abstract

M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter's (1992) capacity theory of comprehension posits a linguistic working memory functionally separated from the representation of linguistic knowledge. G. S. Waters and D. Caplan's (1996) critique of this approach retained the notion of a separate working memory. In this article, the authors present an alternative account motivated by a connectionist approach to language comprehension. In their view, processing capacity emerges from network architecture and experience and is not a primitive that can vary independently. Individual differences in comprehension do not stem from variations in a separate working memory capacity; instead they emerge from an interaction of biological factors and language experience. This alternative is argued to provide a superior account of comprehension results previously attributed to a separate working memory capacity.