Sentence frame contexts and lexical decisions: Sentence-acceptability and word-relatedness effects

Many studies have explored the effects of single-word contexts on visual word recognition, and several models have been proposed to account for the results obtained. However, relatively little is known about the effects of sentence contexts. In the experiment reported, the contexts consisted of sentences with the final word deleted, and subjects made word-nonword (lexical) decisions on target strings of letters. Norms were collected to determine the most common completion for each sentence frame. The experiment yielded three main findings: (1) Lexical decisions were fastest for words that were the most common completions; (2) among words not given as completions in the norming procedure, decisions were faster for words related to the most common completions than for words unrelated to the most common completions; t3t also among words that were not produced as completions, decisions were faster for words that formed acceptable completions than for words that did not. These relatedness and sentence-acceptability effects were independent, so that the relatedness effect held even when the target words formed anomalous sentence completions. In order to account for these results, a model combining two types of processes is required. In the model described, schematic knowledge (Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977) operates upon a semantic network to activate particular nodes, and this activation spreads to related concepts as in the Collins and Loftus (1975) model.

[1]  Glenn M. Kleiman,et al.  The Effect of Previous Context on Reading Individual Words. Technical Report No. 20. , 1977 .

[2]  Glenn M. Kleiman,et al.  The Scope of Facilitation of Word Recognition from Single Word and Sentence Frame Contexts. Technical Report No. 133. , 1979 .

[3]  Ira Fischler,et al.  Latency of associative activation in memory. , 1978 .

[4]  John J. L. Morton,et al.  Interaction of information in word recognition. , 1969 .

[5]  W. B. Pillsbury A study in apperception , 1897 .

[6]  John R. Anderson Language, Memory, and Thought , 1976 .

[7]  E. Tulving,et al.  STIMULUS INFORMATION AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION AS DETERMINANTS OF TACHISTOSCOPIC RECOGNITION OF WORDS. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  R. E. Schuberth,et al.  Effects of Context on the Classification of Words and Nonwords. , 1977 .

[9]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  Remembering, Understanding, and Representation* , 1978 .

[11]  I. Fischler Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[12]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and cognitive control. , 1975 .

[13]  Stephen J. Antos Processing facilitation in a lexical decision task. , 1979 .

[14]  C. T. James The Role of Semantic Information in Lexical Decisions. , 1975 .

[15]  Alan S. Brown,et al.  Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium , 1976 .

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

[17]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: Automatic activation and conscious attention , 1979 .

[18]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[19]  J. H. Neely Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. , 1977 .

[20]  Thomas H. Killion,et al.  Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition. , 1977 .

[21]  I. Fischler,et al.  Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition , 1979 .

[22]  H. Shulman,et al.  Control properties of semantic coding in a lexical decision task , 1977 .