psy 369: psycholinguistics

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Language Comprehension:Meaning beyond the word

Announcements Homework 5 (a or b) deadline extended to

April 5

Comprehension roadmap This week:

Comprehension of Sentence Meaning Traditional view: Propositions New view: Embodied representations

Comprehension in Discourse

Propositions How do we represent sentence meaning?

Propositions Two or more concepts (arguments) with a relationship

(relations) between them Arguments – particular times, places, people,

objects, etc. (nouns) Relations - May be used for any kind (e.g., actions,

attributes, positions, class memberships) Smallest unit of knowledge that can be judged as true or

false Complex sentences consist of combinations of smaller

propositional units

Propositions

A mouse bit a catbit (mouse, cat)

How do we represent sentence meaning? Propositions

Two or more concepts with a relationship between them

Can represent this within a network framework

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

rela

tion

subje

ct

time

relationrela

tion subject

Slow Children

Past Eat

ColdBread

Evidence for propositions Bransford and Franks (1971, 1972) Ratcliff and McKoon (1978)

Evidence for propositions Bransford and Franks (1971, 1972)

Study-Recognition Test Task Read sets of sentences, answered a question about each, later

presented sentences and asked whether they were new (not previously presented) or old (previously presented)

The girl broke the window on the porch. Broke what?The hill was steep. What was?

The cat, running from the barking dog, jumped on the table. From what?The tree was tall. Was what?

The old car climbed the hill. Did what?The cat running from the dog jumped on the table. Where?

The girl who lives next door broke the window on the porch. Lives where?…


Study-Recognition Test Task

All of the sentence came from 4 complex sentences. The full complex sentences were not presented at study.

e.g., The girl who lives next door broke the large window on the porch

…The girl lives next door.

The girl broke the window.The window was on the porch.

The window was large.



Test:

Old - same sentences that were presented at studyNew - based on the propositions in the complex sentence, but not

presented at study (including the full complex sentences)Noncase - based on new propositions not based on the complex

sentences (mixing of propositions across the different situations)



Results:• False recognition of sentences

that they were not previously presented with

• Accurate rejections of noncases (different propositions)

• Unable to distinguish between the old and new cases that came from the same complex sentences

Rec

ogni

tion

conf

iden

ce

0

Yes 5

fours threes twos ones

noncases

# of propositions

Yes 4Yes 3

Yes 1Yes 2

No 2No 3No 4

No 1

No 5

★

newold



Conclusions:

• Participants remembered the basic meaning (propositions)

• Participants spontaneously combined the propositions into larger units

Rec

ogni

tion

conf

iden

ce

0

Yes 5

fours threes twos ones

noncases

# of propositions

Yes 4Yes 3

Yes 1Yes 2

No 2No 3No 4

No 1

No 5

★

newold

Evidence for propositions Ratcliff and McKoon (1978)

Tested 3 hypotheses:1. Sentences stored as single unit

2. Sentences stored as connected propositions

3. Sentences stored verbatim


Study-Recognition Test Task Read sets of 4 unrelated sentences, then presented words (one at a

time) and asked whether the words were in the preceding sentences Dependent Measure: Priming - manipulated the order of the words at

test

The mausoleum that enshrined the tsar overlooked the square.The clutch failed to engage.

The beggar forgave injustice but resented hunger.Satire hurt the incumbent.

hunger Y Saturn N square Y mausoleum Y beetle N


Involves two propositions: P1 [OVERLOOK, MAUSOLEUM, SQUARE] P2 [ENSHRINE, MAUSOLEUM, TSAR].


The beggar forgave injustice but resented hunger.Satire hurt the incumbent.


Predictions (if Hypothesis 2: propositions are the memory representation): If prime word from the same sentence, then should respond faster If prime word from the same proposition, then should respond faster

than if from a different proposition (within the same sentence)


squareclutch

Across sentences Between two propositions in the same sentence

squaretsar

squaremausoleumWithin a single

proposition




squareclutch

671 580 560


Within a single proposition

Results

**111 msec**91 msec

squaremausoleum

squaretsar




squareclutch

671 580 560


Within a single proposition

Results

**20 msec

squaremausoleum

squaretsar




Conclusions Support the hypothesis that propositions are used to organize our

memories of sentences

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

Saw (or heard): 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)

Tested: 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

was not mentioned in the text, but was inferredResult:

Participants falsely believed that they had heard this sentenceSo memory is not only of propositions in the original sentence, but may also

include additional propositions that may have been inferred

Arguments against propositions Propositions are symbolic and amodal

Referential problem: Disconnected with outside world (symbols referring to

other symbols) Implementation problem:

Has been very difficult to develop a propositional parser Lack of scientific productivity:

More work on what you can do with propositions than is there evidence of the psychological reality of propositions

Lack of a biological foundation: How do biological (or neurological) data constrain

propositions

Subjects are presented with sequences of sentences that create a spatial array, like:

The bear is to the left of the moose. The moose is to the right of the lion. The moose is to the left of the cow. The lion is to the left of the bear.

Array: lion < bear < moose < cow Subjects are asked either to remember the sentences or to

remember the order Afterwards, people asked to remember the array also ‘remember’

sentences they didn’t actually hear, such as: The bear is to the left of the cow

(also faster to verify, Potts, 1974)

Barclay (1973)

More than propositions

Bransford, Barclay, and Franks (1972)

More than propositions

Recognition Task Result: correctly rejected (b) but accepted (a)

(a): The tree is to the left of the chair.

(b): The chair is to the left of the tree.

Hear: There is a tree with a box beside it, and a chair is on top of the box. The box is to the right of the tree. The tree is green and extremely tall.

Mental Models

• These experiments suggested that contexts are not simply lists of propositions, but that these propositions are somehow ‘merged’ to create `world-like’ representations • Johnson-Laird (1983): While processing, humans construct

representations of worlds/situations related (identical with?) those built from perception

Mental model

Hear: There is a tree with a box beside it, and a chair is on top of the box. The box is to the right of the tree. The tree is green and extremely tall.

Embodiment in language Embodied Representations

Many researchers assume that cognition is “embodied” (or “grounded”) rather than “abstract” (e.g., Barsalou, 2008)

Activates representations associated with the body and actions Theoretical proposals from many disciplines

Linguistics: Lakoff, Langacker, Talmy Neuroscience: Damasio, Edelman Cognitive psychology: Barsalou, Gibbs, Glenberg,

MacWhinney, Zwaan Computer science: Steels, Feldman


Much of this work argues that language is embodied (e.g., Barsalou, 2008; Glenberg, 2008; Zwaan & Taylor, 2006)Perceptual and motor systems play a central role in language production and comprehension (and meaning/concepts) Words and sentences are usually grounded to perceptual,

motoric, and emotional experiences. In absence of immediate sensory-motor referents, words and

sentences refer to mental models or simulations of experience


Simulation hypothesis (Gallese, 2008) Simulation exploits some of the same neural structures activated

during performance, perception, imagining, memory… Language gives us enough information to simulate Processing (producing or comprehending) walk involves the

use of representations involved in the act of walking

producing or comprehending

“walk”

Embodiment in language Evidence for Embodied Representations

Stanfied & Zwaan (2001) Presented participants with sentences

John put the pencil in the cup.

John put the pencil in the drawer

Results: faster at saying horizontal pencil with drawer and vertical pencil with cup

See a picture and ask “does this describe what you read about?”


Zwaan et al (2004) Presented participants with a sentence

A: The pitcher hurled the softball at you.

B: You hurled the softball at the pitcher.

Results: faster at saying ‘Yes’ when sentence matched the pictures (e.g., sentence A and pictures in A, if the ball is small and then gets big, it is coming towards you)

See two pictures and ask “are these pictures the same object”

A B


Hauk et al (2004) Do action words activate the motor cortex? fMRI study

50 words from 3 semantic subcategories

(words matched for freq, length, imageability, etc.)

Rated for whether words reminded them of face, arm, or leg

Movement Comparison: moved their foot, finger, or tongue


Hauk et al (2004) Do action words activate the motor cortex? fMRI study

Action words did activate some of the same areas as the movements

Summing up Traditional

Cognition = Computation

Representation by propositions

Propositions are abstract relations

Embodiment of Meaning Cognition is serving perception

and actions Representation = Patterns of

possible bodily interactions with the world (lawfully related to the world)

What an object, event, sentence means for you, is what you can do with the object, event, sentence.

Summing up The results of sentence comprehension are

meaning representations Some debate over what these representations are Whatever they are, they get integrated with each

other and with existing knowledge from LTM

Discourse Psycholinguistics Traditional Psycholinguistics

Determining what happens when we understand sentences

Broader View How we resolve/understand sentences against the

current discourse representation Sentence comprehension is a process that anchors the

interpretation of the sentence to the representation of the prior text

Discourse Psycholinguistics Traditional Psycholinguistics

Determining what happens when we understand sentences Broader View

How we resolve/understand sentences against the current discourse representation

Sentence comprehension is a process that anchors the interpretation of the sentence to the representation of the prior text

Processing Discourse What is discourse?

The ways that we process (i.e., comprehend and remember) units of language larger than a sentence

Lectures, personal narratives, expository discourse Units of analysis larger than a sentence

Applies to both spoken and written forms

Discourse processing is sort of like syntactic processing – a way of organizing/connecting the different pieces in to larger chunks. Here the chunks are larger than sentences.

Bill and Ted traveled through time and space. Bill asked, “Dude, did you find him?” “Yeah, Bach was in the music store, but I haven’t found Abe

yet. Dude, you should hear him play, he rocks!”“Excellent! Man, we’ve got to get these dudes back to school before we get there.”

To whom does “him” refer to?



To whom does “him” refer? Bach



To whom does this “him” refer?



To whom does this “him” refer? Bach again



To whom does this “him” refer? Bach again



Why not Abe?

Huh!?



Huh!?



Oh yeah, they’re time travelers.

Characteristics of Discourse Local Structure (microstructure):

The relationship between individual sentences Cohesion Coherence

Global Structure (macrostructure): The relationship between the sentences and our

knowledge of the world

Local Structure (microstructure): The relationship between individual sentences

Cohesion• Does the discourse “stick together”?• Interpretation of one sentence depends on other sentences?

Coherence• Does the passage make sense?• Logical consistency and semantic continuity?

Characteristics of Discourse

Characteristics of Discourse Cohesion: Interpretation of one sentence

depends on other sentences Referential Cohesion

“Dude, you should hear him play…” Substitution Cohesion

“We’ve got to get these dudes back to …” And many more

Ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion (See pg 160 of textbook for examples)

The relationship between the referring expression and the antecedent create referential cohesion of discourse

Types of Referential Cohesion Anaphoric Reference

Using an expression to refer back to something previously mentioned in discourse

“…Bach was in the music store …”

“Dude, you should hear him play, he rocks.”

Cataphoric Reference Using an expression to refer forward to something that is

coming up in discourseDude, did you find him?” “Yeah, Bach was in the music store...”

Comprehending Anaphoric References

Daneman and Carpenter (1980)

Sitting with Richie, Archie, Walter and the rest of my gang in the Grill yesterday, I began to feel uneasy. Robbie had put a dime in the juke box. It was blaring one of the latest “Rock and Roll” favorites. I was studying, in horror, the reactions of my friends to the music. I was especially perturbed by the expression on my best friend’s face. Wayne looked intense and was pounding the table furiously to the beat. Now, I like most of the things other teenage boys like. I like girls with soft blonde hair, girls with dark curly hair, in fact all girls. I like milkshakes, football games and beach parties. I like denim jeans, fancy T-shirts and sneakers. It is not that I dislike rock music but I think it is supposed to be fun and not taken too seriously. And here he was, “all shook up” and serious over the crazy music.

Task: Reading a passage and answer questions about the referents of pronouns

Question: Who was “all shook up” and serious over the music?

Reading Span Test Smaller reading spans = smaller working memory capacity

Manipulated how many sentences intervened between the pronoun ‘he’ and the antecedent ‘Wayne’






Results


Daneman and Carpenter (1980) Conclusions: The number of intervening sentences don’t

matter for high span people, but does for low span

Characteristics of Discourse Coherence:

Given/new distinction Readers expect speakers to provide cues as to what

information is old (already known by the listener) and what is new (not known)

Making Inferences Filling in missing pieces of information to maintain

coherence

• Haviland and Clark (1974)• Singer, Halldorson, Lear, & Andrusiak (1992)

Developing coherenceHaviland and Clark (1974)

Process of understanding a sentence in discourse context involves 3 stages:

1. Identify the given and new info in the current sentence

2. Find an antecedent in memory for the given information

3. Attach the new information to this spot in memory


We got some beer out of the trunk. The beer was warm.

Task: Press a button when you understand the sentence.



Definite article “The” signals that “The beer” is given information





Connect the new information “was warm” to the appropriate discourse concept “some beer”

This process is called Direct Matching




We checked the picnic supplies. The beer was warm.


Connect the new information “was warm” to the appropriate discourse concept “??”

World knowledge





Connect the new information “was warm” to the appropriate discourse concept “picnic supplies”

Need a bridging inference to connect “the warm beer” to “picnic supplies”

World knowledge

Direct Matching

Bridging Inference

Developing coherence

Typical results

Comprehended faster

Takes more time



Haviland and Clark (1974)

World knowledge

Task: Press a button when you understand the sentence. Conclusion: If you don’t know the old information and need to

make an inference, this may slow down comprehension.

“Murray poured water on the fire.”“The fire went out.”

Singer, Halldorson, Lear, & Andrusiak (1992)

“Murray drank a glass of water.”“The fire went out.”

T/F “water extinguishes fire”

T/F “Does water extinguish fire?”

Causal conditionRequires

bridging inference

Temporal conditionNo requiredinference

Developing coherence

Results

Task: Press a button when you understand the sentence, if given a question, answer Yes or No.

Conclusions: Suggests that the bridging inference was made More time consuming to make coherence of temporal than causal

relations

Faster reading time

Faster “T”

Brief summary Local Structure (microstructure):

Discourse is coherent if its elements are easily related. Coherence is achieved with cohesive ties between

sentences. Comprehension is impeded when

There are no antecedents, forcing a bridging inference

The antecedent was not recent, forcing a reinstatement of the antecedent.

Characteristics of Discourse Local Structure (microstructure):

The relationship between individual sentences Coherence Cohesion

Global Structure (macrostructure): The relationship between the sentences and our

knowledge of the world

Characteristics of Discourse Global Structure (macrostructure):

Jill bought a new sweater. Sweaters are sometimes made of wool. Wool production gives some farmers a good livelihood. Farming is a high-risk business. On the news last night, I saw a group of business executives discussing recent trends in the stock market.

The relationship between the sentences and our knowledge of the world

Okay local structure, but each sentence isn’t relevant to an overall topic of discourse

Characteristics of Discourse Read story to class (from Bartlett, 1932)

Characteristics of Discourse Global Structure (macrostructure):

Schemas (Scripts) General knowledge structures for common social

situations Genres

Narrative structure Story grammars - extension of idea of grammatical

rules, specify the organization of a story Expository structure

Different structures

Effects of world knowledge If the balloons pooped, the sound would not be able to

carry since everything would be too far away from the correct floor. A closed window would also prevent the sound from carrying since most buildings tend to be well insulated. Since the whole operation depends on a steady flow of electricity, a break in the middle of the wire would also cause problems. Of course the fellow could shout, but the human voice is not loud enough to carry that far. An additional problem is that a string could break on the instrument. Then there could be no accompaniment to the message. It is clear that the best situation would involve less distance. Then there would be fewer potential problems. With face to face contact, the least number of things could go wrong.

Bransford & Johnson (1972)

Effects of world knowledge

Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being held, especially since the charges against him had been weak. He considered his present situation. The lock that held him was strong but he thought he could break it. He knew, however, that his timing would have to be perfect.

Prison escape OR Wrestling match

Anderson et al (1977)

Effects of world knowledge Schemas (Scripts)

Mental structures of how the world works, acquired through experience

A whole package of information about what we know about the world and events

Generic story of situations A framework with causal information

Used to facilitate comprehension of discourse, as well as to guide recall (and reconstruction)

Effects of world knowledge Schemas (Scripts)

Generic story of situations

Go inside

Go to table

Sit down

Scene 1: Enter Scene 2: Order

Get menu

Read menu

Choose food

Give order

Scene 3: Eat

Get food

Eat food

Scene 4: Pay

Ask for check

Received check

Tip waiter

Pay check

Exit

Restaurant Script


Bartlett (1932) Task:

Read native American folk tale Write down everything that you can remember

from that story that I read earlier Bartlett had them recall after a longer periods of

time (between 15 mins. Up to 10 years later)


Bartlett (1932)

Conclusions: We use our Schema to facilitate comprehension of discourse, as well as to guide recall (and reconstruction)

Results: Participants’ memories changed to fit their

existing beliefs (reconstructive memories) Added new details Changed details Deleted details


Invernizzi & Abouzeid (1995) Read two European tales (cry wolf & stone soup)

2 audiences European North American children Ponam children (New Guinea)


Invernizzi & Abouzeid (1995) Retelling of boy who cried wolf Ponam children (New Guinea)

Once upon a time Kalai and his family they lived on an island. Kalai’s mother always carried him everywhere. One day Kalai’s mother and father went out fishing. Kalai’s mother said, “Kalai, you are too small to go out fishing in the sea. You should stay home with your grandfather.” Kalai was lonely on the beach. Kalai said, “How could I get my family home?” He sat down and decided to get his family home. He got his red laplap and ran down to the beach and waved his laplap to his family and said, “Fire, fire.” His brother saw his laplap and went home. When they arrived they saw nothing.


Invernizzi & Abouzeid (1995) Retelling of boy who cried wolf European North American children

Kalai was running up and down the beach yelling “Fire, fire.” Everybody came home. The next day the same thing happened. They came home. The next day came, but the house caught on fire. He ran up and down the beach, but nobody came. Kalai kept waving the flag. Nobody came. Suddenly they saw the flames and the smoke and they came, but it was too late. Everything had burnt down to the ground, and his brother told him if he kept telling lies that nobody will come when you call for help.


Invernizzi & Abouzeid (1995) Impact of different schemata European North American children

Setting, precipitating events, goal reaching aspects, story resolutions

Ponam children (New Guinea) Recalled factual detail about settings, events, and

outcomes, but leaving out things like consequence, resolution, moral (generally seemed to miss the point)

Conclusions: We use our cultural schemas to facilitate comprehension of discourse, as well as to guide recall


Smith and Swinney (1992) Task: presented stories (like the “balloons” one)

Collected sentence by sentence reading times Had them recall the sentences Some people were given a title for the story, others not

When do we use the schema? During comprehension or recall?

Results: Overall, reading times were faster with a title that without Stories with titles: More words were recalled and more

“intrusions” (details consistent with the schema but not in the story)

Conclusions: Schemas are used in both on-line comprehension and recall

Effects of world knowledge Summary

We use schemas to Facilitate the comprehension of discourse To guide recall (and reconstruction)

Effects of Genre Not all kinds of discourse follow the same

structure Different effects, purposes, etc.

Expository discourse Convey info about a subject (e.g., textbook, lecture)

Narrative discourse Tell a story: Introduce characters & settings, establish

a goal, etc. APA style Newspaper articles

Expository Structure Reading texts, listening to lectures, etc.

Organized with different relationships (but can still draw a tree structure)

Relationships Collection - ideas or events related on the basis of some commonality Causation - ideas are joined causally so that one idea is identified as

the antecedent and another as the consequence Response - ideas are joined in a problem/solution or question/answer

relationship Comparison - ideas are related by pointing out similarities and

differences Description - general ideas are explained by giving attributes or other

specific details

Narrative structure

Once there was a woman. She saw a tiger’s cave. She wanted a tiger’s whisker. She put food in front of the cave. The tiger came out. She pulled out a whisker.

The story has a structure, a story grammar

Narrative structure Story grammar - can depict with a tree structure

Story

Setting Episode

Event Reaction

Goal Overt Response

Action Consequence

Event Event

Once there was a woman.

She saw a tiger’s cave.

She wanted a tiger’s whisker.

She put food in front of the cave.

The tiger came out. She pulled out a whisker.

Narrative structureThorndyke (1977) Level effect Read more

slowly but are better remembered.

She wanted a tiger’s whisker.

The tiger came out.

High hierarchy statements Lower in the hierarchy.

Comprehensibility and recall were tied to inherent plot structure, independent of passage content

Characteristics of Discourse

Test to see if structure effects whether inferences are made

Task: Think aloud task Read through the story aloud (one sentence at a time) and

talk aloud about their understanding of that sentence

Trabasso & Suh (1993)


Sequential version

Once there was a girl named Betty.One day, Betty found that her mother’s birthday was coming soon.Betty really wanted to give her mother a present.Betty went to the department store.

Betty found a pretty purse.Betty bought the purse.Her mother was very happy.

Several days later, Betty saw her friend knitting.Betty was good at knitting.Betty decided to knit a sweater.Betty selected a pattern from a magazine.Betty followed the instructions in the article.Finally, Betty finished a beautiful sweater.Betty pressed the sweater.Betty folded the sweater carefully.

Betty put it in the closet for the next time she was going out.Berry was very happy.

Betty found that everything was too expensive.Betty could not buy anything.Betty felt sorry.

Betty gave the sweater to her mother.Her mother was excited when she saw the present.

Hierarchical version

How does this sentence connect up with the rest of the story?



Betty was good at knitting.Betty decided to knit a sweater.Betty selected a pattern from a magazine.Betty followed the instructions in the article.Finally, Betty finished a beautiful sweater.Betty pressed the sweater.Betty folded the sweater carefully.Betty gave the sweater to her mother.Her mother was excited when she saw the

present.

SGAAOAAOR

SE

GAOORE

S = SettingE = EventR = ReactionG = GoalO = Overt ResponseA = Action

Once there was a girl named Betty.One day, Betty found that her mother’s birthday

was coming soon.Betty really wanted to give her mother a present.Betty went to the department store.Betty found that everything was too expensive.Betty could not buy anything.Betty felt sorry.Several days later, Betty saw her friend knitting.



was coming soon.Betty really wanted to give her mother a present.Betty went to the department store.Betty found that everything was too expensive.Betty could not buy anything.Betty felt sorry.Several days later, Betty saw her friend knitting.


Betty was good at knitting.Betty decided to knit a sweater.Betty selected a pattern from a magazine.Betty followed the instructions in the article.Finally, Betty finished a beautiful sweater.Betty pressed the sweater.Betty folded the sweater carefully.Betty gave the sweater to her mother.Her mother was excited when she saw the

present.

S E G A O O R

E

SGAAOAAOR

S G A A O

A A O R

SE

GAOORE

Is a superordinate goal that motivates the subgoal of the next episode



was coming soon.Betty really wanted to give her mother a present.Betty went to the department store.Betty found a pretty purse.Betty bought the purse.Her mother was very happy.Several days later, Betty saw her friend knitting.

Sequential version

Betty was good at knitting.Betty decided to knit a sweater.Betty selected a pattern from a magazine.Betty followed the instructions in the article.Finally, Betty finished a beautiful sweater.Betty pressed the sweater.Betty folded the sweater carefully.Betty put it in the closet for the next time she

was going out.Berry was very happy.

SGAAOAAO

R

SE

GAOORE

S E G A O O R

E S G A A O A A O

The goal is already filled, so not related to the subgoal of the next episode


Results

In a think aloud task participants mentioned the superordinate

goal in the hierarchical condition but not the sequential condition

Story grammar structure matters Strongly support the hypothesis that readers do make

global causal connections during reading.

Discourse in memory

Daily Summary: Schemas are used to structure comprehension and

memory Discourses have internal structures that impact

comprehension and memory

Weekly summary: Evidence supports the psychological reality of a number of

different representations Propositions & propositional networks Embodied representations Inferences Schemata and scripts Situation models

Discourse in memory Kintsch’s model

The Construction-Integration Model Discourse occurs in a series of cycles

As each sentence comes in it gets integrated into the discourse

In each cycle Construction phase - activate relevant concepts Integration phase - keep only the most relevant

elaborations Multiple levels of representation formed

Surface form, textbase (propositional), situation model

Discourse in memory Kintsch and colleagues (1990)

Jack scanned the newspaper.Jack looked through the newspaper.Jack looked through the movie ads.Jack looked over some editorials.

It was Friday night and Jack and Melissa were bored, so they decided to catch a movie. Jack scanned the newspaper. He saw that they could just make the nine o’clock showing of the hot new romantic comedy. Off they went.

Did this sentence occur in the paragraph?Read before


Jack scanned the newspaper.

Jack scanned the newspaper

S

N VP

NPV

Surface form


S

N VP

NPV

Surface form



Textbase

Examine

Jack Newspaper


S

N VP

NPV

Surface form



Textbase

Examine

Jack Newspaper

Situational Model





Evidence for surface form

Similar meaning

If Better memory here





Evidence for Strong textbase


Adds inference

Infers which section did he scan.

Discourse in memory Kintch and colleagues (1990)



Did this sentence occur in the paragraph?

Evidence for Strong situation model

inconsistent


consistent

Consistent with situation model.

Discourse in memory Kintch and colleagues (1990)

Summary Discourse processing is both complex and

flexible Multiple representations Processing depends on context

psy 369: psycholinguistics

Documents

false recognition of

studyrecognition test

falsecomplex sentences

large window

complex sentencesnoncase

complex sentencesevidence

new propositions

porchthe girl