PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Language Comprehension:Propositional meaning

Propositions

A mouse bit a catbit (mouse, cat)

Good memory for meaning but not for form How do we represent sentence meaning?

Propositions Two or more concepts with a relationship between them

Propositions

A mouse bit a catbit (mouse, cat)

Good memory for meaning but not for form How do we represent sentence meaning?

Propositions Two or more concepts with a relationship between them

Can represent this within a network framework

Meaning as Propositions Propositions

A set of conceptual nodes connected by labeled pathways that expresses the meaning of a sentence

A mouse bit a cator

A cat was bitten by a mouse

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

relation

subject

time

relationrelation subject

Slow Children

Past Eat

ColdBread

Evidence for Propositions Memory better for sentences with fewer

propositions

“The horse stumbled and broke a leg” horse stumbled horse broke leg

Three propositions

Two propositions

“The crowded passengers squirmed uncomfortably” passengers crowded passengers squirmed passengers uncomfortable

Evidence for Propositions Bransford & Franks, 1971

Constructed four-fact sentences, and broke them down into smaller sentences:

4 - The ants in the kitchen ate the sweet jelly that was on the table.

3 - The ants in the kitchen ate the sweet jelly 2 - The ants in the kitchen ate the jelly. 1 - The jelly was sweet.

Evidence for Propositions Bransford & Franks, 1971

Study: Heard 1-, 2-, and 3-fact sentences only

Test: Heard 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-fact sentences (most of which were never

presented) and noncase sentences

Evidence for Propositions Bransford & Franks, 1971

Results: the more facts in the sentences, the more likely Ss

would judge them as “old” and with higher confidence

Even if they hadn’t actually seen the sentence Constructive Model: we integrate info from

individual sentences in order to construct larger ideas; emphasizes the active nature of our cognitive processes

Priming Propositions Ratcliff and McKoon (1978)

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

“The mausoleum that enshrined the tsar overlooked the square.”

Priming Propositions

Condition Examples RT to Target Priming Effects

Across sentences

Between two propositions in the same sentence

Within a single proposition

square-clutch

square-Tsar

square-mausoleum

671 msec

571 msec

551 msec

None; baseline

100 msec facilitation

120 msed facilitation

Ratcliff and McKoon (1978) Results in a cued memory task (how long does it take to verify

“square” was in the sentence:

Alternative Representations Propositions are symbolic

Problems: The referential problem The implementation problem The lack of scientific productivity The lack of a biological foundation

Alternative Embodied representations (e.g., Barsalou;

1999; Glenberg, 1999)

Embodiment in language

Embodiment in language Embodied representations

Perceptual and motor systems play a central role in language production and comprehension

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

MacWhinney Computer science: Steels, Feldman

Embodiment in language Embodied representations

Perceptual and motor systems play a central role in language production and comprehension

Words and sentences are usually grounded to perceptual, motoric, and emotional experiences.

In absence of inmediate sensory-motor referents, words and sentences refer to mental models or simulations of experience.

Embodiment in language Embodied representations

Brain activity Comprehension and images Concrete words Action words activate motor representations

We understand utterances by mentally simulating their content.

Simulation exploits some of the same neural structures activated during performance, perception, imagining, memory…

Linguistic structure parametrizes the simulation. Language gives us enough information to simulate

Simulation hypothesis

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

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)

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

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)

John was using the hammer to fix the birdhouse when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.

was not mentioned in the text, but was inferred

Inference in comprehension

What does language do?

“Harry walked to the cafe.” “Harry walked into the cafe.”

A sentence can evoke an imagined scene and resulting inferences:

CAFE CAFE

– Goal of action = inside cafe– Source = outside cafe– cafe = containing location

– Goal of action = at cafe– Source = away from cafe– cafe = point-like location

Embodied inferences

WALL

Bonk!!The scientist walked into the wall.

The hobo drifted into the house.

The smoke drifted into the house.

Summing up

Insert summary here