Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Language Comprehension Thomas G. Bowers, Ph.D. 2001.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Language Comprehension Thomas G. Bowers, Ph.D. 2001."— Presentation transcript:

1 Language Comprehension Thomas G. Bowers, Ph.D. 2001

2 Language Comprehension Depends upon the integration of denotative meaning and the impact of syntax Depends upon the integration of denotative meaning and the impact of syntax Semantic analysis requires considerable simultaneous processing of auditory and visual cues Semantic analysis requires considerable simultaneous processing of auditory and visual cues

3 Language Comprehension Parsing can impact on understanding Parsing can impact on understanding  Constituent structure  “A noun, an action, another noun”  E.g. “A doctor shot a lawyer.”“A doctor shot a lawyer.” “A doctor was shot by a lawyer.”“A doctor was shot by a lawyer.” We have no trouble with this type of distinctionWe have no trouble with this type of distinction

4 Language Comprehension Parsing can impact on understanding Parsing can impact on understanding  Constituent structure  Emphasis on structure can lead to better understanding

5 Language Comprehension Form A Form A During WWII, even fantastic schemes received consideration if they gave promise of shortening the conflict. 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.

6 Language Comprehension Form A shows better recall Form A shows better recall

7 Language Comprehension Immediacy of interpretation 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 Syntax is heavily used to interpret a sentence  Young children depend more upon semantics than syntax

8 Language Comprehension Understanding usually depends upon the integration of syntax and semantics Understanding usually depends upon the integration of syntax and semantics Subtle variations can be noted across languages Subtle variations can be noted across languages  English  German  Italian

9 Language Comprehension Neural Correlations of Syntactic and Semantic Processing 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

10 Language Comprehension Neural Correlations of Syntactic and Semantic Processing 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

11 Language Comprehension Neural Correlations of Syntactic and Semantic Processing Neural Correlations of Syntactic and Semantic Processing  ERP studies  Claims that syntax and semantic analyses are processed by different processes

12 Language Comprehension Propositional representation Propositional representation  Comprehension decreasesa as propositonal complexity increases Inferences Inferences  Direct  Backwards  Forward

13 Language Comprehension Examples of inferences 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.”

14 Language Comprehension Examples of inferences 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

15 Language Comprehension Language and Memory 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

16 Language Comprehension Pronominal reference Pronominal reference  Often vague in writing  Some “rules” of meaning (please do not write this way) 1. Number or gender cues1. Number or gender cues 2. Similar grammatical role2. Similar grammatical role 3. Strong recency effect3. Strong recency effect 4. World knowledge4. World knowledge

17 Language Comprehension Pronominal reference Pronominal reference  Often vague in writing  Example: 1. “Tom shouted at Bill because he spilled the coffee.”1. “Tom shouted at Bill because he spilled the coffee.” 2. “Tom shouted at Bill because he had a headache.”2. “Tom shouted at Bill because he had a headache.”

18 Language Comprehension Processing negation Processing negation  Clause is processed first and then the negation is analyzed  Negations are generally slower to process

19 Language Comprehension Text Structure 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

20 Language Comprehension Text 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

21 Language Comprehension Text Comprehension Text Comprehension  Kintsch and van Dijk’s text comprehension model  Recency and importance organize propositions

22 Language Comprehension Text 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

23 Language Comprehension Text 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

24 Language Comprehension Summary Summary  1. Syntax  2. Semantics  3. Parsing influence  4. Immediacy of interpretation  5. Language and memory

25 Language Comprehension Summary Summary  6. Neural correlates  7. Propositional relations  8. Text structure  9. Text comprehension


Download ppt "Language Comprehension Thomas G. Bowers, Ph.D. 2001."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google