Instantiation of general terms

Anderson, Richard C.; Pichert, James W.; Goetz, Ernest T.; Schallert, Diane L.; Stevens, Kathleen V.; Trollip, Stanley R.

doi:10.1016/0022-5371(76)90059-1

Cited by 185 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, typical exemplars seem to be activated even when sentential context is biased toward atypical ones. This finding contradicts 'constructivist' theories that claim that categories do not possess a relatively fixed internal structure and that the meaning of a category can change dramatically, depending on the context in which the name of the category is immersed (Anderson et al 1976;Anderson and Shiffrin 1980). For the present question of when context influences category structure, Whitney et al 1985 work is most relevant because it entailed an on-line investigation of processing using Cross Modal Lexical Priming (CMLP).…”

Section: Category Names In Sentential Contextmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…The question is when during the temporal unfolding of sentential context does the effect occur. Are categories created or adjusted on-line, and immediately context appropriate (as would be suggested by research of Anderson et al 1976; or studies on ad-hoc category formation by Barsalou 1983)? Or is there something invariant across sentence contexts that we can call a 'conceptual representation' activated every time a category name is encountered?…”

Section: Category Names In Sentential Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Activating Basic Category Exemplars in Sentence Contexts: A Dynamical Account

Rączaszek-Leonardi

Shapiro

Tuller

et al. 2007

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the influence of context on the processing of category names embedded in sentences. The investigation focuses on the nature of information available immediately after such a word is heard as well as on the dynamics of adaptation to context. An on-line method (Cross Modal Lexical Priming) was used to trace how this process unfolds in time. We found that the information available immediately after a category word is presented is not altered by the sentence context in which the word is immersed. Rather, the structure of availability of particular exemplars of the category resembles the typicality structure of a conceptual representation. The adaptation to context occurs later (between 300 and 450 ms after the category word) and takes the form of a rapid reorganization of the structure rather than a gradual activation of a contextually relevant exemplar. We claim that such data is best accounted for in a dynamical framework, where a coherent global structure emerges through locally guided self-organization.

show abstract

Section: Category Names In Sentential Contextmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Category Names In Sentential Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Activating Basic Category Exemplars in Sentence Contexts: A Dynamical Account

Rączaszek-Leonardi

Shapiro

Tuller

et al. 2007

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, recall of (7) can be doubled by cuing people with the word "shark". Using more specific cues such as the names of various typical fish either reduces or has no effect on the recall of (8) (R. C. Anderson et al, 1976; see also R. C. Anderson & Shifrin, 1980;Garnham, 1979) . 6 On the mapping view, the word "fish" would therefore seem to "map" onto SHARK in (7) but not in (8).…”

Section: The Context Dependence Of Word-meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

From words-as-mappings to words-as-cues: the role of language in semantic knowledge

Lupyan

Lewis

2017

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semantic knowledge (or semantic memory) is knowledge we have about the world. For example, we know that knives are typically sharp, made of metal, and that they are tools used for cutting. To what kinds of experiences do we owe such knowledge? Most work has stressed the role of direct sensory and motor experiences. Another kind of experience, considerably less well understood, is our experience with language. We review two ways of thinking about the relationship between language and semantic knowledge: (i) language as mapping onto independently-acquired concepts, and (ii) language as a set of cues to meaning. We highlight some problems with the words-as-mappings view, and argue in favor of the words-as-cues alternative. We then review some surprising ways that language impacts semantic knowledge, and discuss how distributional semantics models can help us better understand its role. We argue that language has an abstracting effect on knowledge, helping to go beyond concrete experiences which are more characteristic of perception and action. We conclude by describing several promising directions for future research. ROLE OF LANGUAGE IN SEMANTIC KNOWLEDGE 3

show abstract

“…For example, Schank (1978) argued strongly for the view that extensive elaboration is a normal part of comprehension: "Understanding is expectation based. It is only when the expectations are useless or wrong that bottom-up processing begins" (p.94).In support of this view, a number of early studies yielded evidence for extensive elaboration in reading (e.g., Anderson et al, 1976;Paris & Lindauer, 1976). In these studies, however, researchers relied on cued recall to test for use of elaborative inferences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In support of this view, a number of early studies yielded evidence for extensive elaboration in reading (e.g., Anderson et al, 1976;Paris & Lindauer, 1976). In these studies, however, researchers relied on cued recall to test for use of elaborative inferences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of foregrounding on readers’ use of predictive inferences

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research extends previous attempts to determine whether subjects make predictive inferences during comprehension. For example, when subjects read a passage about someone falling out of a 14th-story window, do they infer that the person is dead? Previous research in which lexical decision, word naming, and recognition tasks have been used for detecting predictive inferences has had mixed results. In experiment 1, a word-stem completion task was used to test for predictive inferences. The word stems were formed from target inferences that followed either priming or control passages. The data revealed that predictive inferences are generated only about concepts that are foregrounded in the passages. In Experiments 2 and 3, lexical decision and naming were used to test for predictive inferences. The lexical decision data replicated the word-stem completion data. A control experiment ruled out a simple context-checking explanation for the lexical decision results. The naming data indicated that this tasks was not sensitive to elaborative inference generation. The results show that readers make predictive inferences, but do so selectively.In the early 1970s, research on how people read began to focus on the nature of the mental representation formed during comprehension. One idea that came from this research was that a passage is encoded as a mental representation that has been constructed from preexisting and text-based information (see, e.g., Bransford & Johnson, 1973;Johnson-Laird, 1983).A key assumption of this constructive view is that information not explicitly stated is inferred during comprehension and becomes part of the text representation. However, the evidence is mixed with respect to whether such elaborative inferences are made on-line, and theoretical positions on the extensiveness of elaboration have become quite polarized (Whitney, 1987). For example, Schank (1978) argued strongly for the view that extensive elaboration is a normal part of comprehension: "Understanding is expectation based. It is only when the expectations are useless or wrong that bottom-up processing begins" (p.94).In support of this view, a number of early studies yielded evidence for extensive elaboration in reading (e.g., Anderson et al., 1976;Paris & Lindauer, 1976). In these studies, however, researchers relied on cued recall to test for use of elaborative inferences. It has become clear that This research was supported by Air Force Office of Scientific Research Grant 9 t-(l068 to the first author. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, or the AFOSR or the U.S. government. Experiment I formed the basis of a thesis submitted by the second author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MS degree. The authors thank Donna Lomen for her help with data collection. Address correspondence to Paul Whitney, Department of Psychology. Washington State University, Pullman, cue effectiven...

show abstract

Instantiation of general terms

Cited by 185 publications

References 16 publications

Activating Basic Category Exemplars in Sentence Contexts: A Dynamical Account

Activating Basic Category Exemplars in Sentence Contexts: A Dynamical Account

From words-as-mappings to words-as-cues: the role of language in semantic knowledge

The effect of foregrounding on readers’ use of predictive inferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About