Flashcards
Language and meaning studies
Cards in this deck (33)
- 1Kutas & Hillyard 1980How do we extract meaning from language?
Role-assignment: N400 for semantic anomalies - 2Haviland & Clark 1974How do we extract meaning from language?
Making necessary inferences slows reading. - 3Keefe & McDaniel 1993How do we extract meaning from language?/ METHODS
1. Drawing elaborative inferences (BROKE)
2. Priming in LDT - 4McKoon & Ratcliff 1986How do we extract meaning from language?
Drawing elaborative inferences (DEAD) - 5Johnson-Laird 1983How do we extract meaning from language?
Mental models: e.g. how people would sit next to each other - 6McConkie & Rayner 1975METHODS
Moving window paradigm - 7Swinney 1979AMBIGUITY
Evidence for Exhaustive Access Hypothesis (bug as spy or ant) - 8Rayner & Pollatsek 2006AMBIGUITY
Evidence for exhaustive access hypothesis (biased vs balanced) - 9Van Berkum et al., 1999N400
Discourse (global context) anomalies illicit an N400 effect - 10Hagoort et al., 2004N400
Real world knowledge N400 effect - 11Nieuwland & Van Berkum 2006N400
Peanut in love. Discourse context influences interpretation from the start. - 12Hagoort et al., 1991P600
Syntactic violations (subject-verb violations) - 13Van Herten et al., 2005P600
Thematic role reversals (semantic violations) - 14Kuperberg et al., 2007P600
Animacy and semantic violations - 15Stanford & Sturt 2002Shallow processing
- 16Ferreira et al., 2002Shallow processing
A) Good enough representations
B) Garden path sentences - 17Frazier and Rayner 1990Shallow processing
Ambiguous nouns in incomplete semantic commitment - 18Pickering et al., 2006Shallow processing
Verb underspecification in incomplete semantic commitment - 19Ferreira 2003Shallow processing
Pragmatic normalisation with active/passive sentences - 20Wason & Reich 1979Shallow processing
Pragmatic normalisation - 21Erickson & Mattson 1981Semantic Anomalies
Moses illusion (A. not a lack of encoding, B. not correcting) - 22Reder & Kusbit 1991Semantic anomalies
NOT lack of encoding of the Moses illusion - 23Barton & Sanford 1993Semantic anomalies
Survivors be buried (A. not corrected, B. global fit theory) - 24Van Oostendorp & De Mul 1990Semantic anomalies
Varying the semantic similarity alters detection (Moses/Adam/Nixon) - 25Kamas et al., 1996Semantic anomalies
Priming concepts that define differences between Noah and Moses decreased detection - 26Bohan & Sanford 2008Semantic anomalies
ET & time course, not immediate detection - 27Sanford et al., 2011Semantic anomalies
Auditory time course & P600 vs N400 - 28Bohan et al., 2012Semantic anomalies
Text-based time course, N400 vs P600 and P2 - 29Bredart & Modolo 1988Semantic anomalies
It-cleft and focus on depth of processing - 30Baker & Wagner 1987Semantic anomalies
Logical subordination on depth of processing - 31Sturt et al., 2004Semantic anomalies
A. Discourse focus on depth of processing
B. text-change detection - 32Warren & Gibson 2002Semantic anomalies
Noun phrases and load on depth of processing - 33Sanford et al., 2005Semantic anomalies
Higher loads= lower detection, no effect in closeness for text-change detection
Information
- Description
- Advanced topics in language (Language and meaning) Flashcards on Language and meaning studies, created by Isobel Dawson on 03/12/2019.
- Created by
- Isobel Dawson
- Views
- 1
- Rating