The advantage of first mention in Spanish

Carreiras, Manuel; Gernsbacher, Morton Ann; Villa, Victor

doi:10.3758/bf03214418

Cited by 60 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the NP1 probes and NP2 probes were in fact different names, the names were assigned to subject (NP1) and object (NP2) positions at random from pairs matched in length and perceived frequency (using norms collected by Gernsbacher). The effects in this study are similar in magnitude to those found in studies systematically investigating first mention effects (e.g., Gernsbacher & Hargreaves, 1988;Gernsbacher, Hargreaves, & Beeman, 1989;Carreiras, Gernsbacher, & Villa, 1995) in which the position of the names was systematically varied. There is no question of the first mention effect reported here being a materials effect.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

The Locus of Implicit Causality Effects in Comprehension

Garnham

Traxler

Oakhill

et al. 1996

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

152

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit causality might enable readers to focus on the imputed cause of an event and make it the default referent of a following pronoun. Alternatively, its effects might arise only when a following explicit cause is integrated with a description of the event. In three probe recognition experiments, in which the participants in the events were of the same sex, the only reliable effect -apart from the advantage of first mention -was that of whether implicit and explicit causes were the same. This effect was independent of whether the probe named the referent of the pronoun. In a fourth experiment, in which the two participants were of different sexes, there was no simple effect of implicit causality, but there was an advantage for the pronoun's referent. These results are consistent with the view that implicit causality has its effects at integration. We discuss their broader implications for theories of comprehension.There is a growing consensus that mental representations of the content of text take the form of discourse models (e.g., Garnham, 1981Garnham, , 1987Johnson-Laird & Garnham, 1980;Greene, McKoon, & Ratcliff, 1992;Stenning, 1978;Webber, 1979) and that the primary goal of a theory of text comprehension is to specify the nature of such models and of the processes that construct them. Discourse models contain representations of people, things, events (in the broad sense of that term used in semantic theory; see e.g., Frawley, 1992, in which it covers acts, actions, states, and processes), and so on, in the real, or an imaginary, world. However, beyond this basic specification, there is considerable disagreement about their nature and about the mental processes that build them. One important issue is the extent to which discourse models are elaborated using information that is not explicit in a text, but which must be derived inferentially (see e.g., , vs Garnham, 1992, and Glenberg & Mathew, 1992. Another set of issues, and one that has received less attention in the psychological literature, concerns the internal structure of discourse models. These issues, which can loosely be dubbed "issues-of focus," are crucial to online theories Address correspondence and reprint requests to Alan Garnham, Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QG, United Kingdom. Tele-phone: +44 1273 678337. Fax: +44 1273 678611. alang@epunix.sussex.ac.uk. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript of text comprehension, because the internal structure of discourse models determines which parts of those models are most available in memory. It is one of these issues that we address in this paper.Some of the things mentioned in a text are in focus and, therefore, readily available for later reference, and others are not. Both local, sentence level, and global, discourse level, mechanisms may contribute to whether an item is in focus and hence can readily be referred to again (e.g., using a pronoun). However, the details of these mechanisms rema...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

The Locus of Implicit Causality Effects in Comprehension

Garnham

Traxler

Oakhill

et al. 1996

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

152

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have described those mental representations as structures, and we have proposed several general cognitive processes and mechanisms that enable comprehenders to build mental structures during comprehension (Gernsbacher, 1990;. According to the Structure Building Framework, comprehenders build coherent mental structures by first laying foundations (Carrieras, Gernsbacher, & Villa, 1995;Gernsbacher & Hargreaves, 1988;Gernsbacher, Hargreaves, & Beeman, 1989). Comprehenders then develop their mental structures by mapping incoming information onto their developing mental structures, when that incoming information coheres with or relates to the previous information (Deaton & Gernsbacher, in press;Foertsch & Gernsbacher, 1994;Gernsbacher, in press;Gernsbacher & Robertson, 1992).…”

Section: How Do Cataphoric Devices Improve Their Concepts' Representamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cataphoric Devices in Spoken Discourse

Gernsbacher¹,

Jescheniak²

1995

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose that speakers mark key words with cataphoric devices. Cataphoric devices are counterparts to anaphoric devices: Just as anaphoric devices enable backward reference, cataphoric devices enable forward reference. And just as anaphoric devices mark concepts that have been mentioned before, cataphoric devices mark concepts that are likely to be mentioned again. We investigated two cataphoric devices: spoken stress and the indefinite this. Our experiments demonstrated three ways that concepts marked by cataphoric devices gain a privileged status in listeners' mental representations: Cataphoric devices enhance the activation of the concepts that they mark; cataphoric devices suppress the activation of previously mentioned concepts; and cataphoric devices protect the concepts that they mark from being suppressed by subsequently mentioned concepts.When people communicate, they talk about actions, events, ideas, other people, and a host of topics. We shall refer to these topics as "concepts" in a discourse. Some concepts are introduced but never referred to again; other concepts play a key role in the discourse. Speakers would benefit if those key concepts achieved a privileged status in their listeners' mental representations because speakers could refer to key concepts assured that their listeners could easily access them. Listeners would benefit, too: They could use key concepts as cornerstones when developing their mental representations.In this paper, we propose that speakers mark key concepts with certain discourse devices, what we call cataphoric devices. In this paper, we also demonstrate how concepts marked by cataphoric devices gain a privileged status in the mental representations that listeners build when comprehending discourse. WHAT ARE CATAPHORIC DEVICES?We envision cataphoric devices as counterparts to anaphoric devices. Anaphoric devices enable backward reference. For instance, English speakers use anaphoric devices like the pronoun she or the definite noun phrase the woman to refer to a previously mentioned female. Speakers master the use of anaphoric devices as they are mastering communication.

show abstract

“…For instance, main characters, usually introduced into the narrative by proper names, are more prominent and accessible than are secondary characters, introduced by role names (Anderson et al, 1983;Morrow, 1985b). Furthermore, first-mentioned characters are more accessible than are second-mentioned characters (Carreiras, Gernsbacher, & Villa, 1995;Gernsbacher & Hargreaves, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading

et al. 1997

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we explored the role of verb tense and verb aspect in subjects' construction of mental models while reading. In the first and second experiments, subjects read paragraphs in which verb tense was manipulated to assign current and past attributes (job descriptions) to a main character. The results showed that on-line accessibility was faster for current attributes. The results of the third experiment showed that verb aspect manipulations regarding character actions affect the speed at which the characters are available for recognition.

show abstract

The advantage of first mention in Spanish

Cited by 60 publications

References 16 publications

The Locus of Implicit Causality Effects in Comprehension

The Locus of Implicit Causality Effects in Comprehension

Cataphoric Devices in Spoken Discourse

The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About