東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Meaning versus verbatim memory in la...

Lim, Phyllis Louise.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Meaning versus verbatim memory in language processing: Deriving inferential, morphological, and metaphorical gist.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Meaning versus verbatim memory in language processing: Deriving inferential, morphological, and metaphorical gist./
Author:	Lim, Phyllis Louise.
Description:	413 p.
Notes:	Director: Valerie Reyna.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International54-11A.
Subject:	Education, Educational Psychology. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9410687

Meaning versus verbatim memory in language processing: Deriving inferential, morphological, and metaphorical gist.
Lim, Phyllis Louise.

Meaning versus verbatim memory in language processing: Deriving inferential, morphological, and metaphorical gist. - 413 p.

Director: Valerie Reyna.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Arizona, 1993.

Individual differences in gist versus verbatim processing were found in adults across the three experiments.Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017560
Education, Educational Psychology.

Meaning versus verbatim memory in language processing: Deriving inferential, morphological, and metaphorical gist.
LDR:03483nam 2200325 a 45 001 946184
005 20110523
008 110523s1993 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
035 $a (UMI)AAI9410687
035 $a AAI9410687
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Lim, Phyllis Louise. $3 1269594
245 1 0 $a Meaning versus verbatim memory in language processing: Deriving inferential, morphological, and metaphorical gist.
300 $a 413 p.
500 $a Director: Valerie Reyna.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 54-11, Section: A, page: 4040.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Arizona, 1993.
520 $a Individual differences in gist versus verbatim processing were found in adults across the three experiments.
520 $a Adult memory for verbatim and gist information was tested immediately and after a 12-day delay in three experiments within the framework of fuzzy-trace theory, (e.g., Brainerd & Reyna, 1990; Reyna & Brainerd, 1991) using a crossed, within-subjects false recognition design which controlled for the amount of verbatim and gist in recognition stimuli and for the difficulties mentioned by Fletcher (1992). Instruction to recognize gist or verbatim information was a between-subjects factor.
520 $a Experiment 1 investigated sentence recognition and misrecognition of inferences for spatial and linear sentences. Subjects exhibited both verbatim memory for the presented premises and gist intrusion for sentences that differed in surface form but shared the same gist. Relationships between presented premises and their inferences were independent when subjects interrogated verbatim traces to answer memory questions, and gist traces to answer reasoning (inference) questions. Subjects used gist to verify sentences in the meaning condition, and dependencies between premises and inferences were largely positively dependent. Overall, Experiment 1 replicated Reyna and Kiernan's (in press) findings with children, suggesting that adults do not qualitatively differ from children in the processing of verbatim and gist representations. Experiment 1's results rule out a constructivist account of memory (e.g., Bransford and Franks, 1971).
520 $a Experiment 2 investigated recognition of inflected (e.g., past tense and plural) verb and noun word pairs, and misrecognition of analogous pairs. Results were similar to Experiment 1 as subjects used verbatim traces for verification in the memory condition. When processing for patterns, however, some subjects appeared to use a phonological rule, whereas others appeared to use a semantic rule.
520 $a Experiment 3 investigated recognition of interpretations of novel Literal and Perceptual metaphors. Results were largely similar to those of Experiments 1 and 2. However, negative dependencies were found between presented metaphors and their interpretations in the memory condition, supporting the principle of discrepancy detection (e.g., Loftus, 1979). Evidence disconfirmed stage models of metaphor interpretation in which literal precedes figurative interpretation. Results were explained by two models of interpretation depending on metaphor type (Literal or Perceptual).
590 $a School code: 0009.
650 4 $a Education, Educational Psychology. $3 1017560
650 4 $a Language, Linguistics. $3 1018079
650 4 $a Psychology, Psychometrics. $3 1017742
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0525
690 $a 0632
710 2 $a The University of Arizona. $3 1017508
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 54-11A.
790 $a 0009
790 1 0 $a Reyna, Valerie, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 1993
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9410687