Language Use and Understanding

Language Use and Understanding BCS 261 LIN 241 PSY 261 CLASS 8: MENTAL MODELS (BOWER & MORROW; BRANSFORD ET AL.)

So far… • Discourse processes in language production and comprehension • Clark & Schober -- role of grounding in referring • Haviland & Clark -- people link incoming material with given information • Arnold et al. & Brennan -- other things can also be more accessible • Some given things more accessible than others • Disfluency makes novel & new things accessible

What is the basis for these processes? • They all depend on our MENTAL MODEL of the situation an discourse • Mental model is influenced by: • Linguistic context (perspective, order of mention, disfluency) • Bransford et al.: inferences about physical relationships • Bower & Morrow: characters’ goals and movements

What is the mental model? • Nonlinguistic model • Has to be dynamic -- we focus our attention on different aspects of the model over time

Discussion Question • Does this constructive theory account for how we fill in missing pieces of information from storied in our memories? (Jessica DeSisto) • In general -- yes, mental models give us a richer interpretation of texts that allow plausible mistakes. Very similar to “filling in” memories based on schemas.

Bransford, Barkclay, & Franks (1972) • What accounts for memory of the content of individual sentences? • Interpretive approach -- “deep structure” (semantics) of sentences themselves. No cross-sentence construction of relationships. • Constructive approach -- sentences are not remembered as linguistic objects, but provide information for the mental model.

Discussion questions • I'm not sure what other cognitive activities Bransford et al. are trying to show are at work during sentence comprehension under a constructive model. It seems as though I need a little more information about "deep structure" as is identified in this article to understand the differences between the two theories in place in this article. I understand that constructive model uses linguistic input to build information about a scenario, but it seems that the interpretive model makes very similar claims, in fewer words. (Anthony Shook)

Bransford, et al. posit that linguistic information is used in conjunction with previous knowledge. Why can't the linguistic information be part of the shared knowledge? While they allow that linguistic information is used, it seems to be more intertwined with context than they are willing to admit. (Nicole Dobrowolski)

Interpretive Theory: Information is contained in the structure itself Constructive Theory: Relations may be inferred that may not have been specified (1) Three turtles rested beside a log, and a fish swam beneath them. (2) Three turtles rested on a log, and a fish swam beneath them.

Predictions • Three turtles rested {beside / on} a log, and a fish swam beneath them. • Three turtles rested {beside / on} a log, and a fish swam beneath it. • How likely are subjects to detect the pronoun change?

Experiment 1 • Acquisition: Subjects were instructed to listen carefully to a set of sentences that would be read to them (they would be answering questions about the sentences later) • Recognition: After a 3 minute break, subjects were asked to indicate which exact sentences they had heard, and which they had not, and rate their confidence in each response (1-5) • --> combined to form a 10-point rating scale

For example • Participants read: Three turtles rested beside a log, and a fish swam beneath them. • At test:Old-NI (…beside a log…them)New-NI (…beside a log…it). • Participants read: … on a log…them. • At test:Old-PI (…on a log…them).New-PI (…on a log… it).

Clarification Qs • Critical difference: The PI sentences allow the inference that the fish are under the log, the NI sentences don’t. (cf. Jesse Blake’s clarification Q) • Note that both sentences involve equal inferences about relative loactions. NI means that the relation of the fish to the log isn’t the same as the relation of fish to turtles (cf. Beth Riina’s Q)

Results • OLDS NEWS • PI 1.40 1.43 • NI 2.22 -.19 • FILLERS 2.19 -4.15

Exp. 2: Recall test • Problems with recall are specific to the pronoun (given correct recall of the rest of the sentence, PI sentences had poorer pronoun recall than NI sentences) • The results in the first experiment indicated that PI and NI sentences were remembered differently in that Ss' inability to differentiate OLD from NEW sentences was generally confined to sentences in PI form. Can you completely rule out the linguistic approach with this data alone? What controls need to be applied to make sure the results are consistent with the constructive approach? (MR)

Exp. 3 • Do listeners construct mental models of relationships over mutliple sentences? • There is a tree with a box beside it, and a chair is on top of the box. The box is to the right of the tree. The tree is green and exteremely tall.

Results: 42% 29% 16% 13% • Recognition set A: • Old (box to right of tree) • I (chair to right of tree) • Change R (box to left of tree) • Change R&S (chair to left of tree) • Recognition set B • Old’ (tree to left of box) • I ‘ (tree to left of chair) • Change R’ (tree to right of box) • Change S&R’ (tree to right of chair) 33% 37% 22% 8%

BBF conclusions • …”argues against the tacit assumption that sentences “carry meaning”. People carry meanings, and linguistic inputs merely act as cues which people can use to recreate and modify their previous knoweldge of the world.” (page 207)

Bower and Morrow (1990) • How do comprehenders build mental models of texts? • Narrative components • Spatial Models

Narrative Components • Focus on main character • Focus on goals • Build causal connections • Understand typical plans faster than atypical ones • Need extra step to make inferences

Spatial models • Readers focus attention on main character • “Spot of light” metaphor of shifting attention • Consequences: • Find pronoun referent in current focus (cf. Brennan) • Disambiguation • S1: John was walking past the car on his way to the • S1’: John walked past the car up to the house. • S@: The windows were dirty.

Exp. 1 • Subjects memorize layouts of buildings • Stories read line-by-line • Wilbur walked from the reception room into the library. • Respond to pairs of objects (lamp, radio) -- in the same or different room? • Fastest time for objects in goal room • Next-- objects in source room • Next -- another room in the same building • Next -- other building

Exp. 2: major vs. minor chars • “The major charcter went into room A after the minor character had gone into room B”. • Test probe: object, character • Half the time the object was in the same room as the named character • Qs about major character answered more quickly. • Greater diff when major character mentioned in the first, main clause (cf. Brennan 1995)

Discussion Q • In the second experiment, dealing with major vs. minor characters, what kind of results would we expect if we had a hypothetical narrative involving two main characters of equal importance to the story? Note: It seems, to me, that the sentence rule mentioned in the article (main theme = first in main clause) would govern subjects response (Anthony Shook)

Exp. 3: Intermediate locations • “The character walked from room A into room C” (which requires passing through room B) • Qs about room B answered faster than Qs about room A • Wouldn’t necessarily happen if distances were great, e.g. NY to LA

Discussion Q • What do you think causes subjects to "jump space" from point A to point B in certain narratives? Is it purely a spatial distance issue, or is there any other influencing factor? We know that the way the narrative is shaped (i.e. what the author makes the reader believe is important) has influence over these results, strong as they may be, but aside from that, what makes certain spatial distances ok to jump over and others not? (Anthony Shook)

General Discussion Qs • Does the constructive theory agree in anyway that people form mental images of some sentences and/or stories? Would the constructive theory agree with the results of Bower and Morrow? (Jessica DeSisto)

Qs about relation btwn. Lexical and Discourse processing • Many children have a difficult time comprehending text, yet they can read each word perfectly. What reasons would Bower and Morrow give for the lack in comprehension? (MR) • We've been focusing on where the readers/listeners direct their attention, but how do distractions from that attention come into play? What's going on when reading the name "Wilbur" in this article makes me think of the pig from Charlotte's Web, but I am able to move past that association in order to focus on the task at hand? (Nicole Dobrowolski)

Bower and Morrow state that whether studies are based on reading or listening is irrelevant to the points they're trying to prove. Is this really true? I would think that there is quite a bit of difference between a written text wherein a sentence can be re-read several times for ensured comprehension and an oral text, which cannot be rewound and in fact continues with new information? (Nicole Dobrowolski)

Why is it that we form mental images of sentences and stories? Is this a way to extend our short term memory or is it just something we naturally do when we read/listen to something? (Jessica DeSisto) • Would we see these same types of results for people who are illiterate and do not have the experience or reading complex stories/sentences? (Jessica DeSisto)

Language Use and Understanding