Problem 3: Language comprehension Flashcards
locutionary act
act of saying something
illocutionary force
intention
perlocutionary effect
effect on the receiver
three parts of a metaphor:
tenor = topic
vehicle = comparison
ground = implied similarity
Pragmatic theory
we comprehend the meaning of figurative language by considering the literal meaning and then rejecting it
implication of pragmatic theory + proof
1) literal meaning precedes figurative meaning (disproven)
2) shouldn’t comprehend figurative meaning is literal meaning applies (disproven)
conceptual metaphor theory
we use metaphors to make sense of the world + metaphors are part of bigger categories
we process pragmatics first, then conceptual
class inclusion theory
metaphors are inclusion statements, this accounts for the evidence that metaphors are non-reversible
instantiation
identifying a general term with a specific meaning
assertives
expressing something to the external world (stating)
directives
make recipient do something (request, command)
expressives
describe inner emotional state (thanking, apologising)
commissives
commit to do something (promise, threat)
declaratives
change state of the world (baptise)
Action prediction theory
an utterance will activate the full range of possible partner actions at the neural level
cascade timeline
phonological –> lexica-syntactic –> lexicon-semantic–>pragmatic processing
instant/parallel processing
all processing happens at the same time
Van ackeren et al (indirect request –> ToM & motor network)
Goal: investigate if explicit word forms are necessary for motor actvation
Hypothesis: implied action is seen in activation + inferential step is reflected in ToM activation
Method: measure fMRI
Picture + utterance (IR, PC, UC, PUC)
Results: higher motor activation to IR than other control conditions, ToM activation
Holtgram 2008 !!!! (implicit speech –> speech act activation) exp 1-3
Goal: see if speech activates the areas responsible for perform the act?
method: read scenario –> say if probe was present
Exp 1: audio vs written –> if it was not present, slower response –> no difference
Exp 2: maybe Ss used context checking procedure –> now judge if string of letter is word –> faster response if probe represents word = confirmed!
Exp 3: influence of context so no context now –> effect remained
Holtgraves 2008 exp 4 & conclusion
Goal: comprehension process of participant in convo
Method: use bot
results: hyp confirmed, Ss are slower for verifying that probe had not been there
Conclusion: results in line with speech act theory: automatic recognition for both written and spoken speech acts, both observers and participants
Holtgraves 2012!!!!
Goal: can emoji facilitate recognition of indirect meaning
Exp 1: effect of emoji interpretation –> lower accuracy for non-emoji responses
Exp 2: emoji location –> emoji but not location effect, no effect for requests
Conclusion: in ambiguous situations, emoji facilitate recognition of intended meaning
