PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Comprehension: Propositional meaning.
-
Upload
yvonne-dingley -
Category
Documents
-
view
230 -
download
4
Transcript of PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Comprehension: Propositional meaning.
PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
Language Comprehension:Propositional meaning
Propositions
A mouse bit a catbit (mouse, cat)
Good memory for meaning but not for form How do we represent sentence meaning?
Propositions Two or more concepts with a relationship between them
Propositions
A mouse bit a catbit (mouse, cat)
Good memory for meaning but not for form How do we represent sentence meaning?
Propositions Two or more concepts with a relationship between them
Can represent this within a network framework
Meaning as Propositions Propositions
A set of conceptual nodes connected by labeled pathways that expresses the meaning of a sentence
A mouse bit a cator
A cat was bitten by a mouse
mouse
bit
cat
agent
patient
relation
Deriving Propositions More complex example:
Children who are slow eat bread that is cold Slow children Children eat bread Bread is cold
relation
subject
time
relationrelation subject
Slow Children
Past Eat
ColdBread
Evidence for Propositions Memory better for sentences with fewer
propositions
“The horse stumbled and broke a leg” horse stumbled horse broke leg
Three propositions
Two propositions
“The crowded passengers squirmed uncomfortably” passengers crowded passengers squirmed passengers uncomfortable
Evidence for Propositions Bransford & Franks, 1971
Constructed four-fact sentences, and broke them down into smaller sentences:
4 - The ants in the kitchen ate the sweet jelly that was on the table.
3 - The ants in the kitchen ate the sweet jelly 2 - The ants in the kitchen ate the jelly. 1 - The jelly was sweet.
Evidence for Propositions Bransford & Franks, 1971
Study: Heard 1-, 2-, and 3-fact sentences only
Test: Heard 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-fact sentences (most of which were never
presented) and noncase sentences
Evidence for Propositions Bransford & Franks, 1971
Results: the more facts in the sentences, the more likely Ss
would judge them as “old” and with higher confidence
Even if they hadn’t actually seen the sentence Constructive Model: we integrate info from
individual sentences in order to construct larger ideas; emphasizes the active nature of our cognitive processes
Priming Propositions Ratcliff and McKoon (1978)
Involves two propositions: P1 [OVERLOOK, MAUSOLEUM, SQUARE] P2 [ENSHRINE, MAUSOLEUM, TSAR].
“The mausoleum that enshrined the tsar overlooked the square.”
Priming Propositions
Condition Examples RT to Target Priming Effects
Across sentences
Between two propositions in the same sentence
Within a single proposition
square-clutch
square-Tsar
square-mausoleum
671 msec
571 msec
551 msec
None; baseline
100 msec facilitation
120 msed facilitation
Ratcliff and McKoon (1978) Results in a cued memory task (how long does it take to verify
“square” was in the sentence:
Alternative Representations Propositions are symbolic
Problems: The referential problem The implementation problem The lack of scientific productivity The lack of a biological foundation
Alternative Embodied representations (e.g., Barsalou;
1999; Glenberg, 1999)
Embodiment in language
Embodiment in language Embodied representations
Perceptual and motor systems play a central role in language production and comprehension
Theoretical proposals Linguistics: Lakoff, Langacker, Talmy Neuroscience: Damasio, Edelman Cognitive psychology: Barsalou, Gibbs, Glenberg,
MacWhinney Computer science: Steels, Feldman
Embodiment in language Embodied representations
Perceptual and motor systems play a central role in language production and comprehension
Words and sentences are usually grounded to perceptual, motoric, and emotional experiences.
In absence of inmediate sensory-motor referents, words and sentences refer to mental models or simulations of experience.
Embodiment in language Embodied representations
Brain activity Comprehension and images Concrete words Action words activate motor representations
We understand utterances by mentally simulating their content.
Simulation exploits some of the same neural structures activated during performance, perception, imagining, memory…
Linguistic structure parametrizes the simulation. Language gives us enough information to simulate
Simulation hypothesis
Inference in comprehension Not all propositions come from the bottom-up
Elaboration - integration of new information with information from long term memory
Memory for the new information improves as it is integrated
Inferences - a proposition (or other representation) drawn by the comprehender
From LTM, not directly from the input
We draw inferences in the course of understanding new events.
The inferences get encoded into our memory of the events.
e.g., drawing inferences of instruments
Bransford, and colleagues (1972, 73)
Inference in comprehension
John was trying to fix the birdhouse. He was looking for the nail when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.
Bransford, and colleagues (1972, 73)
John was using the hammer to fix the birdhouse when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.
Inference in comprehension
John was trying to fix the birdhouse. He was looking for the nail when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.
Bransford, and colleagues (1972, 73)
John was using the hammer to fix the birdhouse when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.
was not mentioned in the text, but was inferred
Inference in comprehension
What does language do?
“Harry walked to the cafe.” “Harry walked into the cafe.”
A sentence can evoke an imagined scene and resulting inferences:
CAFE CAFE
– Goal of action = inside cafe– Source = outside cafe– cafe = containing location
– Goal of action = at cafe– Source = away from cafe– cafe = point-like location
Embodied inferences
WALL
Bonk!!The scientist walked into the wall.
The hobo drifted into the house.
The smoke drifted into the house.
Summing up
Insert summary here