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 38
Page 1786
... syntactic form: Half were in the active voice, and half were in the passive voice. To encourage our subjects to attend to all aspects of the sentences (not just the participants' names), we followed each experimental sentence with a two ...
... syntactic form: Half were in the active voice, and half were in the passive voice. To encourage our subjects to attend to all aspects of the sentences (not just the participants' names), we followed each experimental sentence with a two ...
Page 11
... are virtually always the syntactic relation called " subject , " and they typically also fill the se- mantic role considered " agent . 11 In a series of experiments , David Hargreaves and I The Process of Laying a Foundation / 11.
... are virtually always the syntactic relation called " subject , " and they typically also fill the se- mantic role considered " agent . 11 In a series of experiments , David Hargreaves and I The Process of Laying a Foundation / 11.
Page 12
... syntactic subjects ( Greenberg , 1963 ) , topics ( Givón , ed . , 1983 ) , and themes ( Tomlin , 1983 ) . So , along many dimensions semantic agents hold an advantage over semantic patients ( the recipients of the action ) . Given that ...
... syntactic subjects ( Greenberg , 1963 ) , topics ( Givón , ed . , 1983 ) , and themes ( Tomlin , 1983 ) . So , along many dimensions semantic agents hold an advantage over semantic patients ( the recipients of the action ) . Given that ...
Page 13
... syntactic form : Half were in the active voice , and half were in the passive voice . TABLE 2.2 Example Sentence Set AGENT Tina beat Lisa in the state tennis match . Lisa was beaten by Tina in the state tennis match . PATIENT Tina was ...
... syntactic form : Half were in the active voice , and half were in the passive voice . TABLE 2.2 Example Sentence Set AGENT Tina beat Lisa in the state tennis match . Lisa was beaten by Tina in the state tennis match . PATIENT Tina was ...
Page 15
... syntactic form : A third had preposed ad- verbials , a third had postposed adverbials , and a third were without ad- verbials . To encourage subjects to attend to all parts of the sentences , we fol- lowed each experimental sentence ...
... syntactic form : A third had preposed ad- verbials , a third had postposed adverbials , and a third were without ad- verbials . To encourage subjects to attend to all parts of the sentences , we fol- lowed each experimental sentence ...
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