Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Do Marked Topics Enhance Memory?

dc.contributor.authorNetz, Hadaren
dc.contributor.authorEviatar, Zoharen
dc.contributor.authorKuzar, Ronen
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-12T11:21:42Z
dc.date.available2015-06-12T11:21:42Z
dc.date.issued2012-01-02en
dc.identifier.issn1731-7533en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/9598
dc.description.abstractWe examined the effects of markedness, the deviation from the canonical Subject-Verb-Object structure in English, on the memory of listeners for the topic of the sentence. We used three marked topic constructions: Left-Dislocation, Object-Fronting, and Subject-Marking. Sentences with these structures were inserted as the 6th item in lists of 12 canonical sentences. In all sentences the topic was the name of a man. We measured recall of the critical name. The results revealed that topics of Left-Dislocated sentences were recalled more than topics of the other constructions, with topics of Object-Fronting sentences recalled the least. We briefly discuss how sentence processing procedures might give rise to these effects.en
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegoen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch in Language;9en
dc.rightsThis content is open access.en
dc.titleDo Marked Topics Enhance Memory?en
dc.page.number5-17en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationNetz Hadar - Ben-Gurion University of the Negeven
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationEviatar Zohar - University of Haifaen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationKuzar Ron - University of Haifaen
dc.identifier.eissn2083-4616
dc.referencesAlba, J. W. and L. Hasher. 1983. Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin 93(2): 203-231. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.203 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000320838300004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3en
dc.referencesAlmor, A. and P. D. Eimas. 2008. Focus on noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(2): 201-225. doi: 10.1080/01690960701330936 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000253041700001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3en
dc.referencesBaars, B. J. and S. Franklin. 2003. How conscious experience and working memory interact. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(4): 166-172. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00056-1en
dc.referencesBahlmann, J., A. Rodriguez-Fornells, M. Rotte and T. F. Münte. 2007. An fMRI study of canonical and noncanonical word order in German. Human Brain Mapping 28: 940-949.17274018 doi: 10.1002/hbm.20318 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000249990700003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3en
dc.referencesBever, T. G. and D. J. Townsend. 2001. Some sentences on our consciousness of sentences. In E. Dupoux (ed) Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press: 143-155.en
dc.referencesBirch, Stacy L. and Susan M. Garnsey. 1995. The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 232-267.en
dc.referencesBirner, B. J. and G. L. Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en
dc.referencesBybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.en
dc.referencesCarreiras, M., M. A. Gernsbacher and V. Villa. 1995. The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2(1): 124-129.24203596 doi: 10.3758/BF03214418en
dc.referencesChafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesChang, F. R. 1980. Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference. Memory & Cognition 8(1): 58-64.en
dc.referencesDu Bois, J. W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In W. Chafe (ed) The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex: 203-274.en
dc.referencesDu Bois, J. W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805-855. doi: 10.2307/415719en
dc.referencesDu Bois, J. W. 2000. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.en
dc.referencesDunlosky, J. R., R. R. Hunt and E. Clark. 2000. Is perceptual salience needed in explanation of the isolation effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 26(3): 649-657.en
dc.referencesEysenck, M. W. and M. T. Keane. 2005. Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook, 5th edition. New York: Psychology Press.en
dc.referencesFodor, J. A. and M. Garrett. 1967. Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psychophysics 2(7): 289-296. doi: 10.3758/BF03211044en
dc.referencesGeluykens, R. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-Dislocation in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.en
dc.referencesGernsbacher, M. A. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.en
dc.referencesGernsbacher, M. A. and D. J. Hargreaves. 1992. The privilege of primacy: Experimental data and cognitive explanations. In D. L. Payne (ed) Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 83-116.en
dc.referencesGernsbacher, M. A. and J. D. Jescheniak. 1995. Cataphoric devices in spoken discourse. Cognitive Psychology 29: 24-58.7641525 doi: 10.1006/cogp.1995.1011en
dc.referencesGernsbacher, M. A. and S. Shroyer. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory & Cognition 17: 536-540.en
dc.referencesGibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1-76.9775516 doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1en
dc.referencesGivón, T. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds) Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 59-115.en
dc.referencesGreen, R.T. 1956. Surprise as a factor in the von Restorff Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 52(5): 340-344. doi: 10.1037/h0047496en
dc.referencesGregory, M. L. and L. A. Michaelis. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33(11): 1665-1706. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00063-1en
dc.referencesHunt, R. R. 1995. The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2(1): 105-112. doi: 10.3758/BF03214414en
dc.referencesHunt, R. R. and C. A. Lamb. 2001. What causes the isolation effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6): 1359-1366.en
dc.referencesJansma, J. M., N. F. Ramsey, H. A. Slagter and R. S. Kahn. 2001. Functional anatomical correlates of controlled and automatic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13: 730-743. Jenkins, W. O. and L. Postman. 1948. Isolation and ‘spread effect’ in serial learning. American Journal of Psychology 61: 214-221. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1162/08989290152541403en
dc.referencesJenkins, W. O. and L. Postman. 1948. Isolation and ‘spread effect’ in serial learning. American Journal of Psychology 61: 214-221. doi: 10.2307/1416967en
dc.referencesLambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.en
dc.referencesMacDonald, M. C. 1989. Priming effects from gaps to antecedents. Language & Cognitive Processes 4(1): 35-56.en
dc.referencesNetz, H. and R. Kuzar. 2007. Three marked theme constructions in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 39(2): 305-335. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.007 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000242955800005&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3en
dc.referencesNetz, H. and R. Kuzar. 2010. Three effect of marked topic on memory in Hebrew and English. Languages in Contrast 9(2): 267-283.en
dc.referencesPrince, E. F. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to Left-Dislocation and Topicalization. In P. W. Culicover and L. McNally (eds) Syntax and Semantics 29, The Limits of Syntax. New York: Academic Press: 281-302.en
dc.referencesSchlesewsky, M., G. Fanselow, R. Kliegl and J. Krems. 2000. The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny (eds) German Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 65-94.en
dc.referencesSchmidt, S. R. 1991. Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory & Cognition 19(6): 523-542.en
dc.referencesvon Restorff, H. 1933. Über die wirkung von bereichsbildungen im spurenfeld / The effects of field formation in the trace field. Psychologische Forschung 18: 299-342. doi: 10.1007/BF02409636en
dc.referencesWallace, W. P. 1965. Review of the historical, empirical, and theoretical status of the von Restorff phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin 63(6): 410-424. doi: 10.1037/h0022001en
dc.referencesWright, S. and T. Givón. 1987. The pragmatics of indefinite reference: Quantified text-based studies. Studies in Language 11: 1-33. doi: 10.1075/sl.11.1.02wrien
dc.identifier.doi10.2478/v10015-011-0023-zen


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
v10015-011-0023-z.pdf
Rozmiar:
246.9KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord