A capacity theory of comprehension (M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter, 1992
) has provided an integrated account of several central aspects of sen
tence comprehension, such as the processing of syntactic ambiguity, co
mplex embeddings, syntactic (non) modularity, and individual differenc
es, in terms of the working-memory capacity for language. Some of the
evidence supporting the theory is questioned by G. S. Waters and D. Ca
plan (1996a). This article identifies some of Waters and Caplan's erro
rs about the empirical support in Just and Carpenter (1992), evaluates
Waters and Caplan's alternative hypothesis, and presents the results
of a new neuroimaging study that supports capacity theory and not Wate
rs and Caplan's separate resources hypothesis.