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 6-10 of 69
Page 16
... test names appear in Figure 2.3 . As Figure 2.3 illustrates , we observed an Advantage of First Mention : First ... words of their sentences . Instead , the ad- vantage must be due to each participant's position in the sentence rela ...
... test names appear in Figure 2.3 . As Figure 2.3 illustrates , we observed an Advantage of First Mention : First ... words of their sentences . Instead , the ad- vantage must be due to each participant's position in the sentence rela ...
Page 21
... words of their sentences , we delayed the test point slightly . In the other experiments I have de- scribed , the test names appeared 150 ms after the offset of their sen- tences ' final words . In this experiment , the words Test Name ...
... words of their sentences , we delayed the test point slightly . In the other experiments I have de- scribed , the test names appeared 150 ms after the offset of their sen- tences ' final words . In this experiment , the words Test Name ...
Page 24
... words , we see no ad- vantage of syntactic subject . If we expect the two postposed conditions to resemble the two pre- posed conditions , the condition that does not match is when the phrases were postposed , and the test names were ...
... words , we see no ad- vantage of syntactic subject . If we expect the two postposed conditions to resemble the two pre- posed conditions , the condition that does not match is when the phrases were postposed , and the test names were ...
Page 27
... words , we expected to find an ad- vantage for the second - mentioned participant . Because we wanted to catch comprehenders when they were just finishing comprehending the second clauses , we presented the test names coincident with ...
... words , we expected to find an ad- vantage for the second - mentioned participant . Because we wanted to catch comprehenders when they were just finishing comprehending the second clauses , we presented the test names coincident with ...
Page 29
... test names had not oc- curred in their respective sentences . The lure ... test names were tested at random points through- out the sentence . Half the filler ... words of their sentences , we observed an Advantage of Clause Re- cency ...
... test names had not oc- curred in their respective sentences . The lure ... test names were tested at random points through- out the sentence . Half the filler ... words of their sentences , we observed an Advantage of Clause Re- cency ...
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