Language And Reading

Front 1

Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971)

Back 1

Speeding up recognition by presenting a similar word ahead of a target word

Front 2

Schilling, Rayner and Chumbley (1998)

Back 2

Naming and LDT to test high and low frequency words - low frequency takes longer to recognise

Front 3

Tulving and Gold (1963)

Back 3

Presented with an incomplete sentence and then had to attempt to recognise a predictable or misleading word

Front 4

Morton

Back 4

Logogen Model:

-Logogen: word detector

-each logogen has a certain activation threshold

-high frequency have lower threshold

-low frequency have a higher threshold

Front 5

Reicher (1969), Wheeler (1970)

Back 5

Word Superiority Effect:

-Do you recognise letters better in isolation or in word?

-recognise better in word form

Front 6

Interactive Activation Model, McClellan and Rumelhart (1981, 1982)

Back 6

Shows relationships between word detectors, letter detectors, feature detectors and stimulus

Front 7

Perea and Lupker (2003)

Back 7

Transposed Letter Priming: jumbled letter around in words and showed the letter position is not fixed within the word

Front 8

Coltheart (2001)

Back 8

Dual Route Model:

-Phonological Route: changing sounds into letters

-Direct Route: directly connecting a word to its meaning

Front 9

Frazier: Garden Path Theory

Back 9

Only one syntactic structure is initially considered, simplest structure is chosen

Front 10

MacDonald (1994): Constraint Satisfaction

Back 10

Sentence meaning is chosen from the structure that is most supported by:

-context

-plausibility

-world knowledge

-verb bias

Front 11

Unrestricted Race Model: Gompel, Pickering and Traxler (2000)

Back 11

Model of processing that combines Garden Path and Constraint Satisfaction accounts

Front 12

Grice (1975): Standard Pragmatic View of Irony

Back 12

-To communicate opposite of what is said

-Processing cost of ironic language

Front 13

Direct Access View of Irony

Back 13

Ironic meanings require no faster processing than literal meanings

Front 14

Graded Salience Hypothesis of Irony

Back 14

For highly familiar irony, meaning is accessed straightaway, cost only occurs for unfamiliar

Front 15

Hagoort (2004)

Back 15

Context of Dutch Trains: takes longer to process if violates semantic knowledge and world knowledge

Front 16

Erickson and Matteson (1981)

Back 16

The Moses Illusion: miss associate similar words from the same semantic context

Front 17

Branford, Barclay and Franks (1972)

Back 17

Constructivist Approach: readers construct a mental model of situations and events in the text

Front 18

Cooling and Christiaansen (1977)

Back 18

Participants mistaken recognised sentences relevant to Hitler when they were told a passage was about him

Front 19

Mackoon and Ratcliff (1992)

Back 19

Minimalist Hypothesis:

-Inferences are either automatic or strategic

Front 20

Calvo, Castillo and Schmalhofer (2006)

Back 20

Participants draw more elaborative inferences when asked to guess what might happen next

Front 21

Poynor and Morris (2003)

Back 21

Characters goal was either stated or implied - still guessed goals even when it was only implied

Front 22

Zwaan and Radvansky (1998): Event Indexing Model

Back 22

Readers keep track of a number of dimensions when reading a story:

-Protagonist

-Temporality

-Causality

-Spatiality

-Intentionality

Front 23

Claus and Ketler (2006): Event Indexing Model

Back 23

Participants presented with four passages describing four events - readers will automatically put events into chronological order

Front 24

Experiental Simulations Approach: Chen and Bargh (1999)

Back 24

Push responses faster for a negative stimuli, pull faster for positive