Repetitions of propositional arguments in sentences

Manelis, Leon; Vekovich, Frank R.

doi:10.1016/0022-5371(76)90027-x

Cited by 31 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those findings were consistent with other research demonstrating better recall for organized or integrated material than for nonintegrated material (e.g., Hayes-Roth & Thorndyke, 1979;Kintsch, 1974;Moeser, 1979;Thorndyke, 1977). However, in our earlier study (Manelis & Yekovich, 1976) we also obtained a somewhat surprising result. In a delayed free recall test that occurred after all sentences had been presented, propositional recall was no longer better for Sentence Type A; instead, in two experiments, Type B sentences were recalled as well as or slightly better than the A sentences.…”

supporting

confidence: 93%

“…We included Condition C for two reasons. First, it allowed a complete replication of the immediate recall conditions of the earlier experiments (Manelis & Yekovich, 1976). Second, if subjects can process these difficult sentences successfully, the extra propositional arguments might provide additional access points during retrieval, a possibility we noted in our earlier paper.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…This work was partially supported by Illinois State University and by computer services at Catholic University. Send requests to Frank R. Yekovich, School of Education, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 20064. Copyright 1980 Psychonomic Society, Inc. (Manelis & Yekovich, 1976). In those experiments, reading time and free recall immediately after reading each sentence showed better performance for Type A sentences than for Type B sentences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…The subjects were presented integrated (A) and nonintegrated (B) sentences and were then tested for sentence memory. There was also a third sentence condition containing extra arguments (C) that had been included in our original study (Manelis & Yekovich, 1976). We included Condition C for two reasons.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Accessing integrated and nonintegrated propositional structures in memory

Yekovich

Manelis

1980

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the access properties associated with different propositional structures. Two memory experiments are reported, in which the underlying structures of sentences were integrated or not. Some sentences tested had the same concept repeated across the propositions (integrated), whereas other sentences had no explicit repeated arguments (nonintegrated). Accessibility to the memory traces of the sentences was manipulated through the acquisition and the testing conditions. In Experiment 1, subjects received either immediate or delayed recall tests, under free or cued conditions. Integrated sentences were recalled better than nonintegrated ones under conditions of high accessibility (immediate recall or delayed cued recall). In contrast, under the low-access condition (delayed free recall), nonintegrated sentences were recalled slightly better than the integrated ones. Experiment 2 confirmed and extended the results for delayed free recall. Here again, under conditions of low sentence access, nonintegrated sentences were recalled better. These results were interpreted according to theory dealing with the lag effect in list learning.133

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accessing integrated and nonintegrated propositional structures in memory

Yekovich

Manelis

1980

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the most common is repetition, ranging from literal to anaphoric. Sentences employing repetition were read more rapidly, suggesting that they were easier to map onto a developing structure (Garnham, 1981(Garnham, , 1984Garrod & Sanford, 1977;Haviland & Clark, 1974;Kintsch, Kozminsky, Streby, McKoon, & Keenan, 1975;Mannelis & Yekovich, 1976;Sanford & Garrod, 1980;Yekovich & Walker, 1978). Data from memory tasks (cued recall, free recall, and priming) suggest that propositions co-referenced by repetition were more likely to be represented near one another, perhaps in the same substructure (Hayes-Roth & Thorndyke, 1979;Kintsch et al, 1975;McKoon & Ratcliff, 1980a, 1980b.…”

Section: The Processing Shift Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface information loss in comprehension

Gernsbacher

1985

Cognitive Psychology

201

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shortly after a sentence has been comprehended, information about its exact surface form (e.g., its word order) becomes less available. The present research demonstrated this phenomenon during the comprehension of nonverbal stimuli (picture stories). In Experiment 1, significantly more surface (left/right orientation) information was lost after comprehending several picture stories than just one; in Experiment 2, more was lost after comprehending an entire picture story than half of one. In Experiment 3, subjects segmented the picture stories into their constituents; in Experiment 4, significantly more surface information was lost after crossing these constituents' boundaries than before. The present research also investigated why surface information is lost. Four explanations were considered: Surface information loss is the result of performing grammatical transformations (the linguistic hypothesis), exceeding short-term memory limitations (the memory limitations hypothesis), integrating information into gist (the integration hypothesis), shifting from building one substructure to initiating another (the processing shift hypothesis). The linguistic and memory limitations hypotheses were considered inadequate; the integration and the processing shift hypotheses were tested in the last set of experiments. In Experiment 5 (using nonverbal stimuli), the predictions made by the processing shift hypothesis were confirmed; in Experiment 6 (using verbal stimuli), these results were replicated. Other implications of the processing shift hypothesis concerning surface information loss are discussed.A well-known phenomenon involved in language comprehension is this: Shortly after a passage is comprehended, information about the exact surface form of its sentences (e.g., their word order) becomes less available. By far the most cited demonstration of this phenomenon is Sachs ' (1967). Her subjects listened to a narrative story that included a sentence such as 1. He sent a letter about it to Galileo, the great Italian scientist.After comprehending this sentence, subjects decided whether it or Sentence 2 was the sentence they just heard. 2A letter about it was sent to Galileo, the great Italian scientist.If subjects were tested immediately after hearing the target sentence, their ability to discriminate between it and its reversed form was around 90%. However, if they were tested after comprehending only 80 additional syllables, performance fell to just above chance.Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. M. A. Gernsbacher,

show abstract

Text memory and integration at different times of day

Oakhill¹

1988

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports an experiment that explored whether the extent to which the ideas in a text are integrated changes over the day. In order to monitor integration, a task used by Wilkes, Alred and Al-Ahmar (1983) was adopted. The assumption underlying the task was that information that is inconsistent with respect to preceding information in a text will be remembered differently from information that is not inconsistent. Obviously, such selective remembering cannot occur if the information in the text is not integrated, so the degree to which differential remembering occurs can be taken as an index of degree of integration. Although the predicted differences in degree of integration between morning and afternoon subjects were not confirmed, the morning superiority effect in text recall was replicated, and it was demonstrated that this superiority arose because of the morning subjects' better memory for the exact wording of the text. In addition, subjects showed different types of recall error at the two times of day. These errors are discussed in relation to subjects' hypothesized changes in strategy over the day.

show abstract

Repetitions of propositional arguments in sentences

Cited by 31 publications

References 9 publications

Accessing integrated and nonintegrated propositional structures in memory

Accessing integrated and nonintegrated propositional structures in memory

Surface information loss in comprehension

Text memory and integration at different times of day

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About