hand out of language comprehension_lecture

8/3/2019 Hand Out of Language Comprehension_Lecture

1/21

LC the mental process of listeners take in thesounds uttered by the speaker and use them toconstruct an interpretation of what they think thespeaker intended to convey.

Comprehension 2 areas study Construction process the way of listener construct

an interpretation of a sentence from speakers wordsby identifying surface structure and end up with aninterpretation that resemble an underlying

representation Utilization process how listener utilize/use this

interpretation for further purposes by consideringthree parts of their utterances: speech act,propositional content and thematic content.


2/21

Comprehension of sound

Comprehension of word

Comprehension of sentence


3/21

SC attention to syntactic, semantic, andpragmatic factors

Example

the actor thanked the audience

Syntactic identify the constituent or phrasestructure of the sentence (NP-VP(NP))

Semantic semantic/thematic role (Agent

Recipient of the action) Pragmatic real-world circumstance/situation

to make sense (in end of playtaken a bow)


4/21

What part does each factor play?

Do we use our syntactic semantic, and

pragmatic knowledge simultaneously whenwe comprehend a sentence?

Or do certain factors take priority at variousstates of the comprehension process?

What kinds of cognitive processes areinvolved when a sentence, unlike this simpledeclarative one, is complex enough to be aburden for working memory


5/21

Parsing to assign elements of its

surface structure to linguistic categories

The result of parsing is in the form of atree structure or phrase marker.

The alternative to immediate processing

is to take a wait-and-see approach:to postpone/menangguhkaninterpreting a word or phrase until it isclearer where a sentence is going.


6/21

The immediacy of processing reducesmemory load, it may lead to errors in

parsing.For example,

(2) The florist sent the flowers . . .

But suppose it continues as indicated in (3):

(3) . . . was very pleased.

(4) The florist who was sent the flowers wasvery pleased.


7/21

attaching new items to the current constituent

A primary motivation for this strategy reduces theburden/muatan on working memory during parsing.

Example:

(5) Tom said that Bill had taken the cleaning outyesterday.

We tend to prefer attaching yesterday to the mainclause Tom said than to the subsequent

subordinate clause Bill had taken .

(6) Jessie put the book Kathy was reading in the library

We tend to prefer attaching in the library to thelatter verb reading.


8/21

attaching new items into the phrase marker beingconstructed using the fewest syntactic nodesconsistent with the rules of the language.

Example

(8) Ernie kissed Marcie and her sister We prefer to interpret her sister as a recipient of a

kiss, rather than as the beginning of a new nounphrase.

Frazier and Rayner (1982)(9) The city council argued the mayors position

forcefully.

(10) The city council argued the mayors position was

incorrect. Readin times were faster for 9 than for 10


9/21

Modular model

Parsing by a syntactic module

Not influenced by higher-order contextualvariables (e.g. the meaning of the

sentence) or by general world knowledge These contextual factors influence

comprehension at a later stage.

Interactive model

Syntax and semantics interact Constraint-based model Using all

available information (e.g. syntactic, lexical,discourse, nonlinguistic, contextual) in our

initial parsing.


10/21

Much of research examined structurally ambiguoussentences such as (11).

(11) The florist sent the flowers was very pleased.

(12) The florist sent the flowers to the elderly widow.

(13) The florist who was sent the flowers was very

pleased. The minimal attachment principlesent in (11) is

the verb (MV), as in (12)

Parsing is unrelated to the plausibility of real-world

events (Rayner, Carlson and Frazier, 1983) (11) The florist sent the flowers was very pleased.

(14) The performer sent the flowers was very pleased.

Garden path effects (eye fixation) with both

plausible (14) and implausible (11) sentences.


11/21

Lexical knowledge is immediately utilized to guide

parsing (Trueswell and colleagues, 1994). More favorable to the constraint-based framework.

(19) The defendant examined by the lawyer turnedout to be unreliable.

(20) The evidence examined by the lawyer turned outto be unreliable.

Eye fixation were greater when the subject was

animate as in (19). (19) permits the incorrectmain verb interpretation (garden path effect).

Some information other than syntactic strategies(e.g. minimal attachment, late closure) are

influencing initial parsing decisions


12/21

Goal what we remember

what we do not remember from sentence

the way sentences are ultimately stored inpermanent memory

Contents Memory for Meaning Versus Surface Form

Inferences and Sentence Memory

Propositions and Sentence Memory12


13/21

Sentence Memory concern whether we retain

the exact or verbatim wording of a sentence

or simply its meaning.

Most of the early research : only meaning was retained.

Fillenbaum (1966) Study : Remembering heard sentence(multiple-choice test)

The window is not closed. (original, most people correctlyremembered sentence)

The window is closed.

The window is not open.

the window is open. (if they made an error, they were much morelikely to choose this sentence.)

the meaning similarity of closed and not open enabledcomprehenders to infer one from the other.

People in his study drew inferences from contradictories (open


14/21

Wanner (1974) : surface form versus meaningretention. when you score the results, do nothing to your correct

answer but mark carefully those answers which are wrong.

your correct correct your: changes the meaningof the sentence (100% correct on test)

mark carefully carefully mark : mean the samething (50% correct on test, chance level)

when people listen to sentences without knowingthey are to be tested on them, they primarily retainthe meaning, not the surface form.

14


15/21

Sachs (1967) : various retention interval. test sentence : original, two that changed the

wording but not the meaning, one thatchanged the wording and the meaning.

Retention interval immediately : retention of both form and meaning

was excellent

12.5 sec : memory for form declined (40 syllables)

more delay : (80 syllables)

But, memory for meaning was relatively durableover this time period.

The tendency to store only the meaning ofa sentence in permanent memory is notlimited to spoken languages.


16/21

Keenan, MacWhinney, and Mayhew (1977) interactional content of an utterance is an important

factor in retention under naturalistic conditions(luncheon discussions).

high in interactional content (attitude of the speaker

toward the listener, figures of speech, jokes, insults, andthe like) excellent retention of form as well as meaning of statements.

however, under not naturalistic conditions, it does not.

the pragmatic function they play in the conversational

context.

Holtagraves (1997) Subjects remembered polite wording better than

impolite wording in an unexpected memory test.


17/21

Greater elaboration of processing leads to better retention.

Elaboration processing is the drawing of inferences.

Johnson, Bransford, and Solomon (1973) :

Inference and false recognition error

John was trying to fix the birdhouse. He was looking for thenail when his father came out to watch him and to help himdo the work. (original sentence)

The passage does not specifically state that Johnused a hammer.

John was using the hammer to fix the birdhouse when his

father came out to watch him and to help him do the work. People who heard original sentence falsely

believed that they hand heard this sentence.) In normal circumstances, these inferences are adaptive in

enabling us to tie sentences in discourse together.

17


18/21

We generally store the gist of what another personhas said, rather than the exact form of the sentence.

Forms of inference that we draw are based not onpurely linguistic knowledge but rather on general

world knowledge.

linguistically based representational system (such asdeep structure in transformational grammar) is a poorcandidate for a model of sentence memory.

the exact linguistic form is not well retained, nonlinguistic information may play a major role in the

retention process.

18


19/21

Propositional models of sentence representation

proposition consisting of two or more concepts and somefor of relation between them.

George hit Harry.

Hit (George, Harry)

Harry was hit by George. It was Harry who was hit by George.

The one who hit Harry was George.

More complex sentences convey more than one proposition.

George got into an argument with Harry, hit him, andthen left the bar.

Initiated (George, Harry, argument)

Hit (George, Harry)

Left (George, bar)


20/21

a rough description of the way a propositional representation

of a sentence might be set up during comprehension is asfollows.

when we first encounter a sentence,

extract its meaning

construct a proposition (represents this meaning.)

the surface form is being retained in working memory.

because the meaning is usually of greater interest, moreprocessing resources are devoted to the meaning thanto the surface form.

if the surface structure is pragmatically significant, moreattention is given to it, with consequently better retention.

lead to the drawing of additional propositions(inferences), which are stored along with thepropositions of the presented sentences.


21/21

Unless the sentence was pragmatically striking orthe retention interval was very short, only thepropositional representational along with anyinferences that were drawn will still be stored.

our memory for meaning is excellent, but weare susceptible to remembering inferentialmaterial falsely.

An important advantage of propositional models

they can be extended naturally to discourse

the meaning representation of two one-proposition sentences is equivalent to that ofone two-proposition sentence.

hand out of language comprehension_lecture

Documents