Language Comprehension Thomas G. Bowers, Ph.D. 2001 Language Comprehension Depends upon the integration of denotative meaning and the impact of syntax Semantic analysis requires considerable simultaneous processing of auditory and visual cues Language Comprehension Parsing can impact on understanding Constituent structure “A noun, an action, another noun” E.g. • “A doctor shot a lawyer.” • “A doctor was shot by a lawyer.” • We have no trouble with this type of distinction Language Comprehension Parsing can impact on understanding Constituent structure Emphasis on structure can lead to better understanding Language Comprehension Form A During WWII, even fantastic schemes received consideration if they gave promise of shortening the conflict. Form B During WWII even fantastic schemes received consideration if they gave promise of shortening the conflict. Language Comprehension Form A shows better recall Language Comprehension Immediacy of interpretation Linguistic aspects are immediately processed Unusual or significant words are fixated on for longer periods of time Syntax is heavily used to interpret a sentence Young children depend more upon semantics than syntax Language Comprehension Understanding usually depends upon the integration of syntax and semantics Subtle variations can be noted across languages English German Italian Language Comprehension Neural Correlations of Syntactic and Semantic Processing Receptive auditory analysis depends upon temporal region functions, especially posterior functions Receptive reading requires more integrated analysis Significant impairment in reading may reflect dyslexia Language Comprehension Neural Correlations of Syntactic and Semantic Processing ERP studies Looks for EEG activation by syntax or semantic violations Syntactical error yielded spike in central (S/M) region functions Semantic error yielded spike in parietal region functions Language Comprehension Neural Correlations of Syntactic and Semantic Processing ERP studies Claims that syntax and semantic analyses are processed by different processes Language Comprehension Propositional representation Comprehension decreasesa as propositonal complexity increases Inferences Direct Backwards Forward Language Comprehension Examples of inferences Direct “The dentist pulled the tooth. The patient liked the method.” Backward “The tooth was pulled painlessly. The dentist used a new method.” Language Comprehension Examples of inferences Forward “The tooth was pulled painlessly. The patient liked the new method.” Forward inferences flow more readily to new materials, while backwards inferences are made in increase coherence, hence are more rapid Language Comprehension Language and Memory Loftus and Zanni (1975) nicely demonstrated linguistic impact on memory “Did you see a broken headlight?” “Did you see the broken headlight?” The later question elicited higher recall Language Comprehension Pronominal reference Often vague in writing Some “rules” of meaning (please do not write this way) • 1. Number or gender cues • 2. Similar grammatical role • 3. Strong recency effect • 4. World knowledge Language Comprehension Pronominal reference Often vague in writing Example: • 1. “Tom shouted at Bill because he spilled the coffee.” • 2. “Tom shouted at Bill because he had a headache.” Language Comprehension Processing negation Clause is processed first and then the negation is analyzed Negations are generally slower to process Language Comprehension Text Structure Tends to have a hierarchical structure Recognition and understanding of the hierarchical structure allows for increased reading comprehension and memory A useful treatment for dyslexia Language Comprehension Text Comprehension Kintsch and van Dijk’s text comprehension model There appear to be four (+/-) propositions we can manage in working memory This can be made much larger by reference to meaningful material Language Comprehension Text Comprehension Kintsch and van Dijk’s text comprehension model Recency and importance organize propositions Language Comprehension Text Comprehension Kintsch and van Dijk’s text comprehension model Example of analysis Eisenhower v. Stevenson in 1952 presidential campaign Speeches were similar in readability, Eisenhower’s more complex Language Comprehension Text Comprehension Kintsch and van Dijk’s text comprehension model Eisenhower v. Stevenson in 1952 Steveson’s required a large number of bridging inferences, while Eisenhower’s did not Language Comprehension Summary 1. Syntax 2. Semantics 3. Parsing influence 4. Immediacy of interpretation 5. Language and memory Language Comprehension Summary 6. Neural correlates 7. Propositional relations 8. Text structure 9. Text comprehension
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
