GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Flashcards

Comprehension and Reference Solving

Jessica Mingins Psychology English 31 cards

Cards in this deck (31)

  1. 1Reader's Assumptions About TextCoherent (not random, story/meaning behind it)
    Cohesive (people, events and objects remain the same throughout
  2. 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
  3. 3Memory of Text Sentence BoundariesAfter sentence boundaries
    Memory for detail lost
    Phrases at beginning of sentences remembered better than middle
  4. 4Altering RecallCan alter syntactic structure of how people recall sentences
    by priming with alternative structures
    Therefore, recall NOT verbatim
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 7Inferences and the Frame ProblemProcess of developing information beyond the literal meaning of the text
    Frame Problem: how many inferences do we draw?
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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?
  15. 15Constructionist ApproachFuller set of inferences always elaborated
    Poorly supported by literature
  16. 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
  17. 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"
  18. 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
  19. 19Anaphor resolutionThe process of working out what an anaphor refers to
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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?
  23. 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"
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 26Individual Differences Reading SkillLess skill
    Fewer inferences
    poorer integration of meaning
    Differences in WM, attention, prior knowledge, suppression
  27. 27Individual Differences Prior KnowledgeProvides framework for understanding
    Activates concepts more easily
    Helps processing inferences
    Helps decide on relevant information
    NOT help complex, elaborative inferences
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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"
  31. 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

Information

Description
Psychology (Psycholinguistics) Flashcards on Comprehension and Reference Solving, created by Jessica Mingins on 28/08/2017.
Created by
Jessica Mingins
Views
1
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?