Karteikarten
Comprehension and Reference Solving
Karten in diesem Stapel (31)
- 1Reader's Assumptions About TextCoherent (not random, story/meaning behind it)
Cohesive (people, events and objects remain the same throughout - 2Memory of Text Syntactic and Word Order ChangesOften poor, remember meaning not syntactic details
Sachs (1967) sentences in a story
asked ppts to disntinguish between original &
formal word order change, syntactic change, semantic change
Ppts only able to distinguish semantic changes - 3Memory of Text Sentence BoundariesAfter sentence boundaries
Memory for detail lost
Phrases at beginning of sentences remembered better than middle - 4Altering RecallCan alter syntactic structure of how people recall sentences
by priming with alternative structures
Therefore, recall NOT verbatim - 5Ability to Recall SyntaxSyntax recall not always lost
Soap operas: people remember exact wording if significant
Verbatim memory of lecture good for 2 days, bad after 5 days
Except for extraneous remarks
Irl, remember exact wording if important - 6Relating Items and PropertiesItems and properties become related in model of what was heard
"Agnes was wearing pink dress" vs "was NOT"
Ppts better memory for "pink" 1500ms later for first sentence
Content determines memory - 7Inferences and the Frame ProblemProcess of developing information beyond the literal meaning of the text
Frame Problem: how many inferences do we draw? - 8Types of InferenceLogical: based on word meanings (fish=lives in sea)
Bridging: relate new to previous information, keeps coherence
Elaborative: extending text with world knowledge, become memory of text even if never explicitly stated - 9Elaborative Inferences in EWTLoftus (1975) did you see a/the broken headlight?
Jury in courtroom tend to accept only implied statements even if told to be careful about what was said - 10Elaborative Inferences in AdvertisingJuxtaposing statements: 2 sentences next to one another implies one causes another
Comparative Adjectives without a qualifier
Hedge words: suggest things without stating they're true (may/might/could)
Rhetorical questions
Piecemeal survey results: unwarranted conclusion that better in all ways than all other products - 11Minimalist Approach to InferencesOnly 2 types of inference are encoded automatically
Necessary for local coherence (no longer than 1-2 sentences apart)
Based on information available in STM
Only logical and bringing made automatically - 12Minimalist Approach SupportSinger (1994)
Asked if statement was true after reading 3 sentences
one explicitly stated, one by bridging inference, one by elaborative inference
Statements faster to verify when saw explicit statement or bridging inference
Elaborative 250ms slower, NOT immediate/automatic - 13Elaborative Inferences Over TimePeople make more elaborative inferences (which they believe to have been in text, but wasn't...intrusion inference) the longer the delay
Memory deteriorates and more reconstruction occurs - 14Elaborative Inferences Over Time EvidenceCorbett and Dosher (1978)
Scissors was a good cue to recall
"he cut an article", "he cut an article with scissors", "he cut an article with a razor"
Ppts working backwards from cutting action and infer scissors
Does this reflect reading irl? - 15Constructionist ApproachFuller set of inferences always elaborated
Poorly supported by literature - 16Search-After-MeaningHybrid approach
Can be minimalist or constructionist
Depends on goals
Fast, less background knowledge= minimalist
Slow, enjoyment= constructionist
Strategic & varies w individual differences
Better spelling and vocabulary make more inferences - 17Co-ReferenceType of bridging inference
When two pronouns, nouns, or verbs refer to the same things "John saw he was", "the bread. The food was" - 18Antecedents and AnaphorsAntecedent is the object/person referred to "Mary saw herself" Mary is antecedent
Anaphor is the word/expression later referring to the antecedent, herself in this case - 19Anaphor resolutionThe process of working out what an anaphor refers to
- 20Reference Solving SyntacticCan use syntax
Pronoun in the same phrase, use reflexive form
"bob loved himself", "bob loved him"
Pronoun in different phrase, can be non-reflexive and makes hard to work out
"bob saw that he was wrong"
Must be innate, no one is taught and yet everyone knows - 21Reference Solving ActorsWhen only one actor mentioned, we don't look for others
Actor is explicit focus, implicit focus hard to process, not maintained in WM
More salient in text, less pronoun information needed
Anaphors should aid identification or add new information, using complex pronouns for antecedents in explicit focus makes processing harder - 22Reference Solving AccessibilityAntecedent and anaphor being close aids identification
Background knowledge can also help
"Tom sold Dave his pork because he was veggie"
He must be Tom, why would Dave buy pork if veggie? - 23Reference Solving Gender"Ben and Lucy ate dinner. She liked it, he didn't"
Gender information about pronoun is accessed rapidly if both male and female present, but not if same-sex
People slower to say pronoun if inconsistent with noun "Becca lied; he" - 24Reference Solving Parallel ArgumentsKeeping parallel arguments inmportant
"Bridget talked to Emma because she liked her car"
she= Bridget, both come first
"car" is Emma's, both come second - 25Reference Solving Different Verb TypesNP1 verbs attribute causality to first subject-noun phrase (sold, spoke)
NP2 verbs attribute causality to second object-noun phrase (blamed)
BUT possibly only late effect, helping integration - 26Individual Differences Reading SkillLess skill
Fewer inferences
poorer integration of meaning
Differences in WM, attention, prior knowledge, suppression - 27Individual Differences Prior KnowledgeProvides framework for understanding
Activates concepts more easily
Helps processing inferences
Helps decide on relevant information
NOT help complex, elaborative inferences - 28Individual Differences Suppression HomonymsSuppressing inappropriate meaning of homonyms
Ppts shown "dug with spade", is "ace" relevant?
100ms after, ace inferfered with both skilled and non-skilled
850ms after, only interferes for less skilled - 29Individual Differences Suppression Homophones"lots of patients"
decide if "calm" relevant
as linked to homophone, patience
100ms interference both
1000ms only for less skilled readers - 30Individual Differences Suppression and PunsImportant to understand puns
Must suppress contextually predictable meaning
Harder for less skilled comprehenders
"2 men walk into a bar, the 3rd ducks" - 31Improving Reading AbilityProvide a framework
Studying: PQ4R
Emphasises key points, active approach
Preview: what is discussed?
Questions: make up for each section
Read: carefully
Reflect: relate to prior knowledge
Recite: recall information, answer Q's
Review: recall main points
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Psychology (Psycholinguistics) Karteikarten am Comprehension and Reference Solving, erstellt von Jessica Mingins am 28/08/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Jessica Mingins
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung