The role of suppression in sentence comprehension

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the mechanism of suppression and the vital role that suppression plays in sentence comprehension. The chapter demonstrates how suppression fine-tunes the meanings of words and the vital role that suppression plays in sentence comprehension by documenting that less skilled readers/listeners suffer from less efficient suppression mechanisms. Less skilled readers/listeners are also less able to suppress the incorrect forms of homophones, and they are less able to suppress words while viewing pictures or suppress pictures while reading words. Anaphors differ in how much suppression and enhancement they trigger. The more explicit the anaphor, the more suppression and enhancement it triggers. The mechanisms of suppression and enhancement are also crucial to a process called cataphoric access.

[1]  Phebe Cramer,et al.  A STUDY OF HOMOGRAPHS , 1970 .

[2]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Evidence for Multiple Stages in the Processing of Ambiguous Words in Syntactic Contexts. , 1979 .

[3]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Some of the Interactive Processes in Reading and Their Role in Reading Skill. , 1980 .

[4]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Mechanisms of Sentence Processing: Assigning Roles to Constituents of Sentences , 1986 .

[5]  G. C. Orden,et al.  Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  R. Kreuz,et al.  Context can constrain lexical access: implications for models of language comprehension , 1986 .

[7]  Veronika Coltheart,et al.  Phonological Recoding in Reading for Meaning by Adults and Children , 1988 .

[8]  G. C. Orden.  A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading , 1987 .

[9]  M. C. Smith,et al.  Tracing the time course of picture--word processing. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Context and lexical access: implications of nonword interference for lexical ambiguity resolution. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  John N Williams,et al.  Constraints upon semantic activation during sentence comprehension , 1988 .

[12]  Carol Conrad,et al.  Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[13]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Context effects in word identification , 1985 .

[14]  S. Tipper,et al.  Negative priming between pictures and words in a selective attention task: Evidence for semantic processing of ignored stimuli , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[15]  C. A. Becker.  Allocation of attention during visual word recognition. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Reinhard Blutner,et al.  Sentence processing and lexical access: The influence of the focus-identifying task , 1988 .

[17]  M. Posner.  Chronometric explorations of mind , 1978 .

[18]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension : a construction-integration model , 1991 .

[19]  W. O. Dingwall.  A survey of linguistic science , 1978 .

[20]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[21]  D. Swinney.  Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[22]  Context and lexical access: implications of nonword interference for lexical ambiguity resolution. , 1989 .

[23]  M. Kutas,et al.  Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation ☆ ☆☆ , 1987 .

[24]  M Coltheart,et al.  Children’s use of phonological encoding when reading for meaning , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[25]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[26]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Word recognition: Context effects without priming , 1986, Cognition.

[27]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  The mechanism of suppression: a component of general comprehension skill. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  M. Gernsbacher.  Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension : the structure building framework , 1991 .

[29]  M. Rosson.  The interaction of pronunciation rules and lexical representations in reading aloud , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[30]  P. Tabossi,et al.  Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance , 1987 .

[31]  D. Nelson,et al.  The University of South Florida homograph norms , 1980 .

[32]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Massively Parallel Parsing: A Strongly Interactive Model of Natural Language Interpretation , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  Donald H. Kausler,et al.  Word associations to homographs , 1970 .

[35]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Sentence processing and the clause boundary , 1978 .

[36]  M. Gernsbacher.  Mechanisms that improve referential access , 1989, Cognition.

[37]  C. A. Becker.  Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  Margery Lucas,et al.  Frequency Effects on the Processing of Ambiguous Words in Sentence Contexts , 1987 .

[39]  Marie Bienkowski,et al.  Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[41]  P. Tabossi.  Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts , 1988 .

[42]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context , 1988, Memory & cognition.