PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Production & Comprehension: Conversation.
PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
description
Transcript of PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
Language Comprehension:Semantic networks
Semantics Two levels of analysis (and two traditions of
psycholinguistic research) Word level (lexical semantics, chapter 11)
What is meaning? How do words relate to meaning? How do we store and organize words?
Sentence level (compositional semantics) (chapter 12) How do we construct higher order meaning? How do word meanings and syntax interact?
Separation of word and meaning Words are not the same as meaning
Words are symbols linked to mental representations of meaning (concepts)
Even if we changed the name of a rose, we would not change the concept of what a rose is
Concepts and words are different things Translation argument – we can translate words between languages
(even if not every word meaning is represented by a single word) Imperfect mapping - Multiple meanings of words
e.g., ball, bank, bear Elasticity of meaning - Meanings of words can change with context
e.g., newspaper
Semantics Meaning is more than just associations
Write down the first word you think of in response to that word.
CAT
“Dog”, “mouse”, “hat”, “fur”, “meow”, “purr”, “pet”, “curious”, “lion”
You cannot just substitute these words into a sentence frame and have the same meaning.
Frisky is my daughter’s ______. Sometimes you get a related meaning, other times something very
different.
Semantics Referential theory of meaning (Frege, 1892)
Sense (intension) and reference (extension) “The world’s most famous athlete.” “The athlete making the most endorsement income.” 2 distinct senses, 1 reference
Now In the 90’s Over time the senses typically stay the same, while the references may change
Word and their meanings Semantic Feature Lists
Decomposing words into smaller semantic attributes/primitives
Perhaps there is a set of necessary and sufficient features
Features “father” “mother” “daughter” “son”Human + + + +
Older + + - -
Female - + + -
Word and their meanings Semantic Feature Lists
“John is a bachelor.” What does bachelor mean?
What if John: is married? is divorced? has lived with the mother of his children for 10 years but they aren’t
married? has lived with his partner Joe for 10 years?
Suggests that there probably is no set of necessary and sufficient features that make up word meaning
(other classic examples “game” “chair”)
Semantics as Exemplars Instance theory: each concept is
represented as examples of previous experience (e.g., Medin & Schaffer, 1978)
Make comparisons to stored instances Typically have a probabilistic component
Which instance gets retrieved for comparison
dog
Semantics as Prototypes Prototype theory: store feature information with
most “prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975)
chaircouc
h
tabledesk
1) chair1) sofa2) couch3) table::12) desk13) bed::42) TV54)
refrigerator
bed
TV
refrigerator
Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 if these are good examples of category: Furniture
Semantics as Prototypes Prototype theory: store feature information with
most “prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975) Prototypes:
Some members of a category are better instances of the category than others
Fruit: apple vs. pomegranate What makes a prototype?
Possibly an abstraction of exemplars More central semantic features
What type of dog is a prototypical dog? What are the features of it?
We are faster at retrieving prototypes of a category than other members of the category
Semantics as Prototypes The main criticism of the model
The model fails to provide a rich enough representation of conceptual knowledge
How can we think logically if our concepts are so vague? Why do we have concepts which incorporate objects which are clearly
dissimilar, and exclude others which are apparently similar (e.g. mammals)? How do our concepts manage to be flexible and adaptive, if they are fixed to
the similarity structure of the world? If each of us represents the prototype differently, how can we identify when we
have the same concept, as opposed to two different concepts with the same label?
Concepts as theories A development of the prototype idea to include more
structure in the prototype (e.g., Carey, 1985; Keil, 1986)
Concepts provide us with the means to understand our world
A lot of this work came out of concepts of natural kinds They are not just the labels for clusters of similar things They contain causal/explanatory structure, explaining why
things are the way they are Similar to “scientific theories”
They help us to predict and explain the world
Lexical accessFactors affecting lexical access
Some of these may reflex the structure of the lexicon
Some may reflect the processes of access from the lexicon
Lexical organization There may be multiple levels of representation, with different
organizations at each level
Sound based representations
Meaning based representations
Grammatical based representations
Today’s focus
Semantic Networks Semantic Networks
Words can be represented as an interconnected network of sense relations
Each word is a particular node Connections among nodes represent semantic
relationships
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
has finscan swimhas gills
has featherscan flyhas wings
Bird Fish
Representation permits cognitive economy Reduce redundancy of semantic features
SemanticFeatures
Lexical entry
Collins and Quillian Hierarchical Network model Lexical entries stored in a hierarchy
IS A IS A
Collins and Quillian (1969) Testing the model
Semantic verification task An A is a B True/False
Use time on verification tasks to map out the structure of the lexicon.
An apple has teeth
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Robin eats worms
has a red breast
Testing the model Sentence Verification timeRobins eat worms 1310 msecsRobins have feathers 1380
msecsRobins have skin 1470 msecs
Participants do an intersection search
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Robin eats worms
has a red breast
Robins eat worms Testing the model
Sentence Verification timeRobins eat worms 1310 msecsRobins have feathers 1380
msecsRobins have skin 1470 msecs
Participants do an intersection search
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Robin eats worms
has a red breast
Robins have feathers Testing the model
Sentence Verification timeRobins eat worms 1310 msecsRobins have feathers 1380
msecsRobins have skin 1470 msecs
Participants do an intersection search
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Robin eats worms
has a red breast
Robins have feathers Testing the model
Sentence Verification timeRobins eat worms 1310 msecsRobins have feathers 1380
msecsRobins have skin 1470 msecs
Participants do an intersection search
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Robin eats worms
has a red breast
Robins have skin Testing the model
Sentence Verification timeRobins eat worms 1310 msecsRobins have feathers 1380
msecsRobins have skin 1470 msecs
Participants do an intersection search
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Robin eats worms
has a red breast
Robins have skin Testing the model
Sentence Verification timeRobins eat worms 1310 msecsRobins have feathers 1380
msecsRobins have skin 1470 msecs
Participants do an intersection search
Collins and Quillian (1969) Problems with the model
Difficulty representing some relationships How are “truth”, “justice”, and “law” related?
Effect may be due to frequency of association(organization and conjoint frequency confounded) “A robin breathes” is less frequent than “A robin eats
worms” Assumption that all lexical entries at the same
level are equal The Typicality Effect
A whale is a fish vs. A horse is a fish Which is a more typical bird? Ostrich or Robin.
Collins and Quillian (1969)
Animal has skincan move aroundbreathes
Fishhas finscan swimhas gills
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Robin eats worms
has a red breast
Ostrichhas long legsis fastcan’t fly
Verification times: “a robin is a bird” faster than “an ostrich is a bird”
Robin and Ostrich occupy the same relationship with bird.
Collins and Quillian (1969) Problems with the model
Smith, Shoben & Rips (1974) showed that there are hierarchies where more distant categories can be faster to categorize than closer ones
A chicken is a bird was slower to verify
than A chicken is an animal
Animal
Birdhas featherscan flyhas wings
Chicken lays eggs
clucks
Spreading Activation Models
street
carbus
vehicle
red
Fire engine
truck
roses
blue
orange
flowers
fire
house
applepear
tulips
fruit
Words represented in lexicon as a network of relationships
Organization is a web of interconnected nodes in which connections can represent:
categorical relations degree of association typicality
Collins & Loftus (1975)
Spreading Activation Models
street
carbus
vehicle
red
Fire engine
truck
roses
blue
orange
flowers
fire
house
applepear
tulips
fruit
Retrieval of information Spreading activation Limited amount of
activation to spread Verification times
depend on closeness of two concepts in a network
Collins & Loftus (1975)
Spreading Activation Models Advantages of Collins and Loftus
model Recognizes diversity of information in a
semantic network Captures complexity of our semantic
representation (at least some of it) Consistent with results from priming
studies
Spreading Activation Models More recent spreading activation models
Probably the dominant class of models currently used Typically have multiple levels of representations
Conceptual combination How do we combine words and concepts
We can use known concepts to create new ones Noun-Noun combinations
Modifier noun Head noun
“Skunk squirrel”“Radiator box”
“Helicopter flower”
Conceptual combination How do we combine words and concepts
Relational combination Relation given between head and modifier “squirrel box” a box that contains a squirrel
Property mapping combination Property of modifier attributed to head “skunk squirrel” a squirrel with a white stripe on its back
Hybrid combinations A cross between the head and modifier “helicopter flower” a bird that has parts of helicopters and parts of
flowers
Conceptual combination How do we combine words and concepts
Instance theory has problems (but see the pictures on last slide)
Modification? (brown apple) Separate Prototypes? (big wooden spoon)
But sometimes the combination has a prototypical feature that is not typical of either noun individually (pet birds live in cages, but neither pets nor birds do)
Extending salient characteristics? When nouns are “alignable” (zebra horse) But non-alignable nouns are combined using a different mechanism
(zebra house)
Figurative Language Up to this point we have focused on meaning in “literal
language” Figurative language uses word in ways that go beyond
what is usually considered their typical meaning e.g., metaphors, idioms, sarcasm
How is it understood? Do you have to understand a literal meaning and then metaphor? Does it violate communication norms?
Figurative Language Metaphor
“a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them” (Kruglanski, Crenshaw, Post, & Victoroff, 2007)
Figurative Language Metaphor
Cacciari & Glucksberg (1994): How do you spot them?
Syntactic difference? No. The old rock has become brittle with age. (Referring to a
professor.) Deviance (e.g., some literal violation is detected)?
No. No man is an island. (True and figurative.) My husband is an animal. (True and figurative.) Tom’s a real marine. (Could be true.)
Figurative Language Metaphor
Cacciari & Glucksberg (1994): Do you need to go through literal to metaphorical?
Sam is a pig. Literal. Assess against context. If literal won’t work, go figurative.
Generally no difference in comprehension time for literal and figurative interpretations.
Cacciari & Glucksberg argue that literal vs. figurative is better thought of as a continuum rather than as a dichotomy.
Meaning beyond the word Not all meaning resides at the level of the
individual words. Conceptual combinations Figurative phrases Sentences
Move to compositional semantics