Language Comprehension As Structure BuildingThis book presents a new theoretical framework -- what Gernsbacher calls the Structure Building Framework -- for understanding language comprehension in particular, and cognitive processing in general. According to this framework, the goal in comprehending both linguistic and nonlinguistic materials is to build a coherent mental representation or "structure" of the information being comprehended. As such, the underlying processes and mechanisms of structure building are viewed as general, cognitive processes and mechanisms. The strength of the volume lies in its empirical detail: a thorough literature review and solid original data. |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 25
Page 1782
... set up a situation where subjects view each picture of a nonverbal story ... sentences to subjects. The subjects' primary task is to comprehend the sentences as ... sentence (3) than in sentence (4). (3) Even though Ron hasn't seen many ...
... set up a situation where subjects view each picture of a nonverbal story ... sentences to subjects. The subjects' primary task is to comprehend the sentences as ... sentence (3) than in sentence (4). (3) Even though Ron hasn't seen many ...
Page 1786
... sentence sets; an example is shown in Table 2.2. Each sentence set comprised four versions of a prototype sentence. In two of the four versions, the test names were the semantic agents and either the first- or second-mentioned ...
... sentence sets; an example is shown in Table 2.2. Each sentence set comprised four versions of a prototype sentence. In two of the four versions, the test names were the semantic agents and either the first- or second-mentioned ...
Page 6
... set- ting . An example story appears in Table 2.1 . TABLE 2.1 Example Two - Episode Story from Haberlandt ( 1984 ) ... sentence of each episode than they spend reading any other sentence in each episode . Figure 2.1 illustrates this ...
... set- ting . An example story appears in Table 2.1 . TABLE 2.1 Example Two - Episode Story from Haberlandt ( 1984 ) ... sentence of each episode than they spend reading any other sentence in each episode . Figure 2.1 illustrates this ...
Page 8
... sentence ( 2 ) below . ( 2 ) The newly designed outboard motor , whose large ... set up a situation where subjects view each picture of a nonverbal story ... sentences to subjects . The sub- jects ' primary task is to comprehend the ...
... sentence ( 2 ) below . ( 2 ) The newly designed outboard motor , whose large ... set up a situation where subjects view each picture of a nonverbal story ... sentences to subjects . The sub- jects ' primary task is to comprehend the ...
Page 12
... sentence sets ; an example is shown in Table 2.2 . Each sentence set comprised four versions of a prototype sentence . In two of the four versions , the test names were the semantic agents and either the first- or second - mentioned ...
... sentence sets ; an example is shown in Table 2.2 . Each sentence set comprised four versions of a prototype sentence . In two of the four versions , the test names were the semantic agents and either the first- or second - mentioned ...
Contents
1 | |
10 | |
17 | |
25 | |
31 | |
Do comprehenders represent clausal dependencies? | 39 |
The Communicative Function | 46 |
Does Referential Coherence facilitate mapping? | 53 |
What about other levels of anaphoric explicitness? | 133 |
Why are the mechanisms of suppression and enhancement | 137 |
Do cataphoric devices improve their concepts | 145 |
Are cataphorically marked concepts more resistant | 151 |
Suppression and Enhancement | 161 |
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES | 167 |
Individual Differences in Accessing | 175 |
Individual Differences in Suppression | 185 |
Does Causal Coherence facilitate mapping? | 60 |
Do comprehenders quickly forget information after crossing | 70 |
Why do comprehenders quickly forget the exact form | 72 |
Do comprehenders build separate substructures to represent | 78 |
Chapter 4 | 84 |
Are inappropriate meanings mutually inhibited? | 94 |
Does suppression dampen less relevant associations | 104 |
How does an anaphors referent become most activated? | 110 |
Why are concepts as activated before pronouns as after? | 117 |
Do more explicit pronouns trigger suppression more powerfully? | 126 |
Are lessskilled comprehenders less efficient at suppressing | 186 |
information across modalities? | 197 |
Individual Differences in Enhancement | 203 |
CONCLUSIONS | 211 |
Summary | 222 |
How is the Structure Building Framework similar to other | 231 |
What is lost by describing language comprehension at | 239 |
REFERENCES | 245 |
INDEX | 277 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
According activated Advantage ambiguous words anaphors appeared appropriate ASHTRAY associations bars become beginning cataphoric clause cognitive coherence comprehended information concepts condition Consider constructed context delay demonstrate described developing display effects episode example experiment experimental explanation explicit faster Figure first-mentioned participants forget foundation Gernsbacher half hear hypothesis illustrates immediately inappropriate meanings inferences initial instance introduced John Journal language laying Learning less less-skilled comprehenders linguistic Lisa longer mapping marked measured mechanism of suppression memory mental structures Mention nonreferents nouns objects occur phrases picture picture stories predicted presented processes pronouns Psychology reaction recently comprehended referential referents representations represented second-mentioned semantic sentence shift signal skill speakers spoken stories stressed Structure Building Framework subjects substructure suppression and enhancement syntactic Table tences test names test words third Tina tion topic trials trigger typically unrelated Verbal verbs versions versus written