Language and reading 3 Flashcards
Describe inferences
-Filling in gaps of info based on what makes sense
-Key component in fluent reading
-Comes from LTM to fill in missing details and gaps
-Logical, Bridging and Elaborative inferences
Logical inferences are…
-Ones that depend on meaning of words
-E.g. if someone is referred to as a ‘widow’ we assume that it’s a woman
Bridging inferences are…
-Ones that establish coherence between current text and previous text
-E.g. two sentences of ‘Mary put water on the bonfire’ ‘The fire was put out’
-We assume that the water gets rid of the bonfire as we know this already, so we connect the sentences
Elaborative inferences are…
-Optional
-Adding details to text based on what we know of the world
-Not needed to understand text
-E.g. ‘tooth pulled out painlessly’ we assume that it was completed at the dentist
Constructionist approach - Branford et al. (1972)
-Explains how elaborative inferences are made by readers, and whether they are made under certain circumstances
-Readers construct ‘mental model’ of situation
Describe Bransford et al. (1972) study
-Ppts read sentence such as ‘3 turtles rested on a floating log, and a fish swam beneath them
-Likely to make elaborative inference that fish swam under the log
-Ppts then shown sentence ‘3 turtles rested on a floating log, and a fish swam beneath it’
-They thought it was the same sentence
-Shows inference was made
A study contradicting this is Dooling and Christaansen (1977)
-Instructed ppts to read story on a dictator called Gerald Martin
-A week later they had a recognition test and were told the story was on Adolf Hitler
-Results found that ppts recognised sentences relevant to Hitler rather than in original story
Minimalist hypothesis - McKoon and Ratcliffe (1992)
-Automatic inferences establish local coherence or rely on info already stated in text
-Strategic inferences are created due to readers goals
-Elaborative inferences made during recall rather than when reading the original text
A study supporting this is Calvo et al. (2006)
-2 groups of ppts had to read text
-1 group told to read so they understand the story, and another group were given goal to guess what comes next
-”At the restaurant with some friends he had invited, when dinner was finished, Harry asked the waiter to bring him the check and got out his wallet”
-Presented with target word after story which they had to say as quick as possible e.g. ‘paid’
-If inference was already made then this response would be quicker
-Results found that group 2 made ore inferences that group 1 and were quicker to identify the target word ‘apid’
A study contradicting this is Poynor and Morris (2003)
-Texts compared where main character was either stated or implied
-Further in text, there was sentence that didn’t match the goals
-Explicit : ‘He has always wanted to go somewhere warm and sunny’
-Implicit : ‘He had always been a real sun-worshipper’
-Target lines : ‘and asked for a plane ticket to Florida/Alaska’
-Results found ppts took longer to read sentence that described action not fitting with narrative
-Readers inferred in both cases
Describe the event indexing model - Zwaan and Radvansky (1998)
-Readers construct internal representation of what is described in the text
-Monitor 5 aspects of evolving situation model
1 - Protagonist - central character
2 - Temporality - relationship between the time of previous and present events occurring
3 - Causality - causal relationship of current event and previous event
4 - Spatiality - relationship between spatial setting of current event and previous event
5 - Intentionality - relationship between characters goals and the present event
A study that supports this is Claus and Kelter (2006)
-Ppts shown passages of 4 different events either (1,2,3,4) or (2,3,1,4)
-E2 = ‘But instead they start to argue. For 5 mins/3 hrs they quarrel about Frank’s mother’
-Found that duration of E2 influenced speed in which first event could be accessed
-Suggests readers mentally put 4 events in order themselves
-Should take them longer to read 3 hour sentence, if in chronological order
State a strength and weakness of this study
S - Identifies key processes involved when creating situation models
W - Little say innate of internal representations of events that readers form
Describe the use of schemas
-Stored in long term memory
-Scripts deal with knowledge around specific events on consequences of events, so we form expectations of scenario
-Frames are knowledge structures that relate to aspect e.g. you know a building has 4 walls (fixed info) but you don’t know what it will be made out of (variable info)
A supporting study of this is Bransford and Johnson (1972)
-“The procedure is quite simple. First, you arrange items into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities, that is the next step; otherwise, you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many.”
-Ppts read this and said it was incomprehensible
-Ones that were given the title of “Washing Clothes” found it easy to understand as they could activate their schema
