A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
TEXT, TOPOS, AND MENTAL MODELS
Tekijät: JARVELLA RJ, LUNDQUIST L, HYONA J
Kustantaja: ABLEX PUBL CORP
Julkaisuvuosi: 1995
Journal: Discourse Processes
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: DISCOURSE PROCESSES
Lehden akronyymi: DISCOURSE PROCESS
Vuosikerta: 20
Numero: 1
Aloitussivu: 1
Lopetussivu: 28
Sivujen määrä: 28
ISSN: 0163-853X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544929
Tiivistelmä
We examine how predications in text affect the inferences which are generated and used during reading. Inferences of the so-called ''topos'' type, that is, the more votes X gets, the more likely X will win (Anscombre, 1989; Ducrot, 1988) were explored in the reading of texts describing competitions which involved two main participants. The texts contained ambiguous definite noun phrases, as in ''In the first round, John Smith got almost/only 500 votes. The Irish lawyer was leading/trailing.'' When both sentences in such a sequence were oriented toward a winning or a losing outcome, the ambiguous noun phrases were interpreted as being coreferential with the individual just named, the text was judged as being clearer and more comprehensible, and reading was more rapid. In contrast, when the sentences were oriented in opposite directions, the ambiguous noun phrases were interpreted as referring to the other major participant in a contest, the text was rated as being less clear and less comprehensible, and reading was less rapid. We examine models of reasoning which might be used to resolve such ambiguities in text.
We examine how predications in text affect the inferences which are generated and used during reading. Inferences of the so-called ''topos'' type, that is, the more votes X gets, the more likely X will win (Anscombre, 1989; Ducrot, 1988) were explored in the reading of texts describing competitions which involved two main participants. The texts contained ambiguous definite noun phrases, as in ''In the first round, John Smith got almost/only 500 votes. The Irish lawyer was leading/trailing.'' When both sentences in such a sequence were oriented toward a winning or a losing outcome, the ambiguous noun phrases were interpreted as being coreferential with the individual just named, the text was judged as being clearer and more comprehensible, and reading was more rapid. In contrast, when the sentences were oriented in opposite directions, the ambiguous noun phrases were interpreted as referring to the other major participant in a contest, the text was rated as being less clear and less comprehensible, and reading was less rapid. We examine models of reasoning which might be used to resolve such ambiguities in text.
Turun yliopiston Tutkimustietojärjestelmän portaali