The Psychological Reality of Atomic Propositions Simon Dennis Annemarie Monck School of Psychology University of Adelaide

2 How is sentence structure represented in memory? list of words syntactic units propositional units relational structures Syntagmatic Paradigmatic Model (Dennis 2004, 2005; Dennis & Kintsch, in press) When trying to interpret a new sentence people retrieve similar sentences from memory and align these with the new sentence. The set of alignments is a relational representation of the sentence.

Evidence for Atomic Propositions Free Recall Cued Recall Probe Recognition Reading times and recall Recognition Priming (Kintsch 1998)

Recognition Priming Subjects study sentences: The mausoleum that enshrined the tzar overlooked the square. At test they are given words and asked if they appeared in the study sentences Dependent measure is the recognition latency on a second probe word following a probe to either the same proposition or a different proposition Ratcliff & McKoon (1978)

Results Probe with square then with mausoleum priming effect 111ms Probe with square then with tzar priming effect 91ms. Subjects are faster if the first probe is from same sentence as second Subjects are faster again if the first probe is from the same proposition as second

A closer look at priming data Priming results may not be bi-directional Pronominal Anaphoric Reference e.g. The chauffeur jammed the clutch when he parked the truck clutch -> truck 583ms truck -> clutch 564ms (equivalent to the within prop) Relative Clause: e.g. The mausoleum that enshrined the tzar overlooked the square tzar -> square 614ms square -> tzar 553ms (equivalent to the within prop) Only coordinating conjunction was bidirectional.

Cloze Priming Subjects study sentences The chauffeur jammed the clutch when he parked the truck Then given Cloze items The ____ was jammed by the chauffeur. The ____ was parked by the chauffeur. (or vice versa) Dependent measures: conditional probability of getting the second item correct given that the first item was correct Reaction time given that first item was correct Using passive items gives confidence that we are dealing with something other than syntactic level

Study One 2x3 Factorial Design First factor: Order in which propositions were probed (within subject) Second factor: Sentence type (within subject) Type 2: The caretaker poisoned the rat and a cat dragged the corpse (Coordinating conjunction) Type 4: As the temptress lowered a veil she lured the hero (Anaphoric reference) Type 5: The scout who rolled the log snapped a twig (Relative clause)

Results - Accuracy N = 36 Order Significant F(1,35)=13.177, p =

Results – Reaction time RTs were logged to reduce skew Order Significant F(1,35)=5.802, p =

Discussion Cloze priming results in opposite order to the Ratcliff & McKoon (1978) recognition priming Recognition and Cloze priming referencing different memory structures? Simple propositional model is insufficient

Study Two In study 1, proposition position was confounded with sentence structure. Relative clauses appeared in first proposition only. Referents appeared in first proposition only. Study two focused on just these two constructions and varied the structure: Pronominal Anaphoric (Cataphoric) Reference As the temptress lured the hero, she lowered the veil. As she lured the hero, the temptress lowered the veil. Relative Clause The scout who rolled the log snapped a twig. The scout rolled the log that snapped a twig.

Relative Clause

Anaphoric Reference

Conclusions Anaphoric Reference – differences all in referent with second position better Relative Clause – differences all in matrix with second position better May be complicated by change of subject Current Work Put recognition and Cloze priming in same design to see if there is an interaction.