Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence affect source memory? A Turkish/English investigation

Tosun, Sümeyra; Vaid, Jyotsna; Geraci, Lisa

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.03.004

Cited by 44 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings seem to be at odds with the findings of a recent cross-linguistic study (Tosun et al, 2013) comparing English and Turkish speakers' memories for information presented in first-hand vs. non-first-hand forms. That study revealed that both language groups had equally accurate memories for information presented in firsthand form, but Turkish monolinguals and Turkish-English bilinguals had lower memory accuracy for information presented in non-first-hand forms.…”

Section: Cross-linguistic Encoding Of Evidentialitycontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Although these findings seem to conflict with prior work on the relation between evidentiality and source monitoring in Turkish (e.g., Aksu-Koç et al, 2009;Tosun et al, 2013), none of these studies directly compared two language populations on a truly non-linguistic measure. Our findings are consistent with a developmental study that investigated whether cross-linguistic differences in the encoding of evidentiality might affect the timetable of source monitoring development in young children (Papafragou et al, 2007).…”

Section: Conclusion: Evidence Language and Cognitioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

“…In a cross-linguistic study that is more relevant for present purposes, Tosun, Vaid, and Geraci (2013) compared Turkish-and English-speaking adults' memories for firsthand vs. non-firsthand information. Monolingual Turkish and English speakers and Turkish-English bilinguals read 30 sentences presented one at a time on a computer screen.…”

Section: Linguistic Evidentiality and Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Untitled

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWhen monitoring the origins of their memories, people tend to mistakenly attribute memories generated from internal processes (e.g., imagination, visualization) to perception. Here, we ask whether speaking a language that obligatorily encodes the source of information might help prevent such errors. We compare speakers of English to speakers of Turkish, a language that obligatorily encodes information source (direct/perceptual vs. indirect/hearsay or inference) for past events. In our experiments, participants reported having seen events that they had only inferred from post-event visual evidence. In general, error rates were higher when visual evidence that gave rise to inferences was relatively close to direct visual evidence. Furthermore, errors persisted even when participants were asked to report the specific sources of their memories. Crucially, these error patterns were equivalent across language groups, suggesting that speaking a language that obligatorily encodes source of information does not increase sensitivity to the distinction between perception and inference in event memory.

show abstract

Section: Cross-linguistic Encoding Of Evidentialitycontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion: Evidence Language and Cognitioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

Section: Linguistic Evidentiality and Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidentiality encoded in language and monitoring the sources mapped on those evidential forms have been studied, and the cognitive connection between them is controversial (Aksu-Koç et al, 2009;Papafragou et al, 2007;Tosun et al, 2013). The latter phenomena, that is, source monitoring refers to encoding, retrieving and identifying contextual details within which a specific memory has been acquired (Johnson et al, 1993).…”

Section: Information Source and The Brainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite verb inflections for evidential categories and source identification in Turkish agrammatic Broca's aphasia

Arslan

Aksu-Κοç

Maviş

et al. 2014

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tosun, Vaid, and Geraci (2013) compared Turkish and English speakers on their memories for linguistic assertions marked with the direct or indirect evidential in Turkish and with evidential adverbs in English ( allegedly, reportedly, etc.). The source of information in the linguistic assertions did not affect memory accuracy in English speakers, but Turkish speakers had lower memory accuracy for sentences marked with the indirect evidential compared to the sentences marked with the direct evidential.…”

Section: Adult Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relation between language and mental state reasoning

Ünal¹,

Papafragou²

2018

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter discusses how children’s conceptual representations of the mind make contact with language. It focuses on two domains: the understanding of the conditions that lead to knowledge, and the ability to attribute knowledge to oneself and others. Specifically, it asks whether language provides the representational resources necessary for representing mental states and whether cross-linguistic differences in encoding of mental states influence sensitivity to the features that distinguish the conditions that allow people to gain knowledge. Empirical findings in these domains strongly suggest that language scaffolds the development of these cognitive abilities without altering the underlying conceptual representations of mental states.

show abstract

Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence affect source memory? A Turkish/English investigation

Cited by 44 publications

References 18 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Finite verb inflections for evidential categories and source identification in Turkish agrammatic Broca's aphasia

The relation between language and mental state reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About