Predictive analysis vs. segmentational analysis in sentence perception.

C P Whaley

doi:10.1007/bf01071181

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 512982

Predictive analysis vs. segmentational analysis in sentence perception.

C P Whaley

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Three experiments involving ongoing sentence perception are described. A nonword detection (NWD) latency procedure was employed without a concurrent task (Experiment I), with a concurrent comprehension task (Experiment II), and with a concurrent recall task (Experiment III). Predictions were made based on two plausible models of sentence perception--predictive analysis (PA) and segmentational analysis (SA). Both characterize the hearer as actively imposing a grammatical structure on the input. PA constructs a surface structure representation sequentially (i.e., on a word-by-word basis). SA partitions off clauselike units before establishing the structure of smaller within-clause constitutents. The NWD latency data generally support a PA system (particularly when a concurrent task is used). The results of a nongrammatical condition in Experiment III confirmed that the general findings were not artifactual.

Explore related subjects

Attention Cues Humans Mental Recall Psycholinguistics Semantics Speech Perception Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

C P Whaley. 1979. Predictive analysis vs. segmentational analysis in sentence perception.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01071181

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants.

There is growing evidence that infants become sensitive to the probabilistic phonotactics of their ambient language sometime during the second half of their first year. The present study investigates whether 9-month-olds make use of phonotactic cues to segment words from fluent speech. Using the Headturn Preference Procedure, we found that infants listened to a CVC stimulus longer when the stimulus previously appeared in a sentential context with good phonotactic cues than when it appeared in one without such cues. The goodness of the phonotactic cues was estimated from the frequency with which the C.C clusters at the onset and offset of a CVC test stimulus (i.e. C.CVC.C) are found within and between words in child-directed speech, with high between-word probability associated with good cues to word boundaries. A similar segmentation result emerged when good phonotactic cues occurred only at the onset (i.e. C.CVC.C) or the offset (i.e. C.CVC.C) of the target words in the utterances. Together, the results suggest that 9-month-olds use probabilistic phonotactics to segment speech into words and that high-probability between-word clusters are interpreted as both word onsets and word offsets.

Attention↗

PubMed2000

Infants' tracking of objects and collections.

Recent research suggests that infants' understanding of the physical world is more complex and adult-like than previously believed. One of the most impressive discoveries has been infants' ability to reason about medium-sized, material objects. They are able to individuate objects in a scene, and to enumerate and reason about them. This article reports a series of experiments investigating 8-month-old infants' ability to reason about collections of objects. Experiment 1 shows a sharp contrast between infants' understanding of single objects versus collections. While infants detected the discontinuous ('Magical') disappearance of a single object, they did not detect the Magical Disappearance of a non-cohesive pile of objects. Experiments 2-4 found that infants' difficulty remained even when the distinct identity of each object in the collection was emphasized, but could be overcome if infants (a) first saw the individual objects clearly separated from each other prior to their being placed together in a pile, or (b) had prior experience with the objects making up the collection. Our findings suggest that infants' expectations about object behavior are highly specific regarding the entities they are applied to. They do not automatically apply to any and all portions of matter within the visual field. Both the behavior of an entity, and infants' prior experience play roles in determining whether infants will treat that entity as an object.

Attention↗

PubMed2000

Tracking an object through feature space.

Visual attention allows an observer to select certain visual information for specialized processing. Selection is readily apparent in 'tracking' tasks where even with the eyes fixed, observers can track a target as it moves among identical distractor items. In such a case, a target is distinguished by its spatial trajectory. Here we show that one can keep track of a stationary item solely on the basis of its changing appearance--specified by its trajectory along colour, orientation, and spatial frequency dimensions--even when a distractor shares the same spatial location. This ability to track through feature space bears directly on competing theories of attention, that is, on whether attention can select locations in space, features such as colour or shape, or particular visual objects composed of constellations of visual features. Our results affirm, consistent with a growing body of psychophysical and neurophysiological evidence, that attention can indeed select specific visual objects. Furthermore, feature-space tracking extends the definition of visual object to include not only items with well defined spatio-temporal trajectories, but also those with well defined featuro-temporal trajectories.

Attention↗