Technical Paper 364

THE ROLE OF PRESUPPOSED AND FOCAL

INFORMATION IN INTEGRATING SENTENCES

Frank A. Yekovich, Carol H. Walker, and

Harold S. Blackman

TRAINING TECHNICAL AREA

H 

_ _

~

ir

~

]

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

May 1979

Appr ovs d for pubfl c rs(•us; distri bution unlimlt .d.

4 

~ ~~

4 

A ________ —-
____________________

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under t he Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

W~

LLLAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director Comman der

NOTICES

DISTRISUTION Primary d.str,butson of tti,$ reporl h b

~~

n m.d. by ARI. Pie., .ddross correspondinc,

conc.rning distributiOn of repOfti to U. S. Army R.,. srch inititut. for the B.l,.v,or.I and Social $CiinCSL

ATTN PERI-P . 5001 Eii.nho~~ r Avenul, Al.x.nd,us. Virginia 22333

FINAL DISPOSITION This report may b. diltroyld ,.~~

n it is no longir ns.dsd Pbs.. do not return it to

the U. S. Army Rs.srch Institut for ths S.heviorel and Social Sc,.nc.s,

The findings in bl iss report are not to be coøstrued a, in official O.o.nm.nt of the Army position.

unlelS ~ de,çnitid by other euthOcield documants.

______ -~~~~~ ~ - -
r

U nclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wt,.n D~~. Enb.r~~~ ____________________________________

D~~D4 1DT 

~~~~ ‘~ E’h,A’.’,” DAISE READ INSTRUCTIONS

~~~ . i’j

~.u~~ r

~ i 

~ ii

~~ i~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

~~~~~~~~~~ 

- 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT S CATALOG NUMBER

~S._ 1

Technxcal ft’aper~ p’

~ ~~ ~~~~~~ 

—~— -j S. TYPE OF REPORT 6 PERIOO COVERED

( ~ [ HE_1

~

OLE 0F 3’RESUPPOSED AND FOCAL INFORMATION

rIN I

~~rEG~~ TING SENTENCES . 

r b-- 

-

___________________________

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AliT~~~~f-f C. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

(‘

~

T Frank RJYekovich , Carol_H.j Walke~ 7 1mê.

m.

Harold s./Blackman — --

•. PERFORMING ORGAN IZATI ON NAM E AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT ,

,

-“

~~~ ~AREA a won~ UNIT NUMBERS

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral ancf , 

. 

f—

Social Sciences PERI—Il / 2Q1611,

Ø’

2B74F f 5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ~~~~~~~~~~ if.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personne l ( / / ( May ~~~79

Washington, DC 20310 \......... ...~ $

~~~wu..pe~~OP GES

22

14. MONItORING AGENCY NAME i AOOREU(l( dlil.,~ ,e ftoø Conj,ofllná Offic.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (.1 this r

~~oi’f)

,

l

~~~~ ~~~~~~~ U nclassified

— f I$a. DECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRAO1NG SCHEDULE

Is. mSTsieUYi ON STAT EMENT (of th is R~~ort)

App roved for public re lease ; distribution ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I?. OISTRISUTION STAT EM e~~~s1 ~~M..4M1S. ~~ 1W ~

f dt fM.-.

~

f fr ~~ Ros.5f)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. K EY WORDS (CNWMU. on ,..e. • .i

~~ it n.c...~~v .id Ids,,iity by block n.onb.,)

Comp rehension

Anapho ric refe rence

Linguistic processes

Sentences

Tex t , integration of

2

~ A StNACT (

~~~~~ — ps

~~~~ ~~~ N .

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?ds.if~ by Week .‘s C.’)

— Two experiments explored the linguistic processes that underlie integration of the meaning of one sentence with the meaning of another. The

authors propose that the linguistic markings of both a referring anaphor and

the antecedent to which it refers are important for comprehension . The integrating process involves identifying a primary antecedent from a context sentence and relating an appropriately marked anaphor from the target sentence

back to the antecedent . The primary antecedent is ideally marked as focal

(new information)in the contCxt sentence. whereas the anaDhor jg linguistically

DO ~~~~~~~~ W3,/

~ 

Ec~T~oss O, MOVSI IS O ROS.STE 

Unclassif ied

4 sEcumsi’, ct.~uicicat,ow OF ThIS PAGE ~~~~ 0.5. ~~ i.r.d)

~ ‘C Y 01 Q - - -

_____________________ __ - 

- , -
Unclassified

SECURITY CLAUWICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wb.u , OW. Ent.I. ~~

20. (continued)

- /presupposed (old information) in the target sentence .. Two comprehension-time

experiments tested this idea. Subjects read sentence pairs in which the linguistic markings of a repeated noun phrase varied across the sentences. Context sentences incorporated the noun phrase as either presupposed (P) or focal

(F), and the target repetition appeared as either presupposed (P) or focal (F).

Comprehension time was fastest for FP combinations, intermediate for FF and PP

pairs, and slowest for PF combinations . These results obtained when the proximity of the repeated phrase was controlled (Experiment I) and also when target

sentences were in both active and passive voices (Experiment II).

This report is intended for psychologists interested in linguistics.

‘

I

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wtion OWa Int.f.

~

5.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- - _

Technical Paper 364

THE ROLE OF PRESUPPOSED AND FOCAL

INFORMATION IN INTEGRATING SENTENCES

Frank R. Yekovich, Carol H. Walker , and

Harold S. Blackman

Submitted by: Milton S. Katz, Chief

TRAINING TECHNICAL AREA

Approved By:

E. Ralph Dusek

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeldner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

• 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

May 1979

Army Project Number In4iou

~~ Laboratory

2Q181102B74F Independent Research

Approwsd for public r

~ss.; distribution unIl,t.ted.

_ _

_ _ _

__
- ~

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recornmendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

1

1

LL~

- ~~~~~ ~~

— - - —

~~~ -- -~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~ .. .~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- ~~~~~~~~ 

—

~~~~

-

~~ 

-

- -. 

-
FOREWOtW

The Training Technical Area of the Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducts a program of research in

support of the systems engineering of training. A major objective of

this research is to develop the fundamental data and technology necessary to field integrated systems for improving individual job performance. Such systems include Skill Qualification Testing (SQT), job performance aids , and training courses both in schools and in the field.

This report summarizes two experiments designed to assess factors

that underlie the comprehensibility of written training materials. The

L research was in response to a question that continually confronts off icials at the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC): “How can

training materials be designed to convey important information in language that is easy to understand?” The present work was a joint effort

of colleagues from ARI and Arizona State University . It represents a

basic research effort completed under Army Project 2Q161102B74F , F?

1978.

The authors thank Dr. Leon Manelis, Illinois State University, and

Mrs. Doris Clapp for their ccemtents on an earlier draft of the paper.

~~43ç’~

oLL

q OSEPH ~~ 4DNER ~ echnical Director

r _______ 

. 5.
..—-- ~~~ .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~-~~

-. — —- . -—--- ---— - -.

THE ROLE OF PRESUPPOSED AND FOCAL INFORMATION IN INTEGRATING SENTENCES

BRIEF

Requirement :

To identify factors that affect the comprehensibility of written

materials and to develop guidelines that writers can use to make texts

easier to understand.

Procedure :

Adult subjects read 50 two—sentence texts, presented by tachisto—

scope , controlling the initiation and ending of each pair of sentences.

The time they required to understand each second sentence in rel.ation

to the first (integration) was measured.

One experiment varied the linguistic characteristics of information common to both sentences of a pair. For some pairs, the common

information was linguistically marked as “old” (presupposed) in both

sentences ; for some pairs , the conanon information was identified as

“new” (focal) in both. Some pairs linguistically identified the common information as new in the first sentence and as old in the second ,

and some reversed the marking , identifying the common information as

old in the first and new in the second. As a control condition, some

sentence pairs had no information in common. Sentence sets combined

these five conditions ; that is , five separate first sentences were constructed representing the five conditions , and each was paired with a

specific second target sentence . This technique assured that variations

in target reading time were a direct function of the first sentence of

the pair.

Additional experimentation varied the proximity of the common information across the two sentences (Experiment I) and used different

syntax in the target sentences (Experiment II).

Findings :

The linguistic characteristics of the common information affected

comprehension in consistent ways . Essentially, comprehension was

fastest when the common information was introduced as focal in the

first sentence and then repeated as a presupposition in the second sentence . When the common information across sentences occupied only one

of these two linguistic positions, comprehension was significantly

slower. Finally , when the common information was introduced as

L __ ____________ __ 

0
presupposed in the first sentence and then used as a focus in the second,

comprehension was still slower . The last condition was as slow as the

control condition (two disconnected sentences) . This general pattern

held for texts of various lengths and for sentences with varied syntax.

Implication of Findings :

These experiments demonstrate that the comprehensibility of written

materials is partly a function of the linguistic characteristics of the

text. Results suggest that important information should be emphasized

by introducing that information with specific linguistic conventions.

Othe rwise , the reader may misinterpret the intended theme and consequently not comprehend the meaning.

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-

~~~~~~~~~ -—- ----

THE ROLE OF PRESUPPOSE D AND FOCAL INFORMATION IN INTEGRATING SENTENCES

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

EXPERIME NT I 5

Method 6

Results and Discussion 9

EXPERIMENT II 11

Method 11

Results and Discussion 13

GENERAL DISCUSSION 15

REFERENCES 19

DISTRIBUTION 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Example sentence sets used in Experiment I 7

2. Mean target comprehension time (in milliseconds)

as a function of proximity and sentence condition ,

Experiment I 9

3. Example sentence sets used in Experiment II 12

4. Mean target comprehension time (in milliseconds)

as a function of target voice and sentence

condition , Experiment II 14

5. Mean continuability ratings for 50 sentence

pairs in Experiment II, as a function of target

voice and number of appropriate markings 16

— -

~~-- — -‘- — —-- — -

~

-d~~-

~ - ~~~~ - ----- - - - ----
THE ROLE OF PRESUPPOSED AND FOCAL

INFORMATION IN INTEGRATING SENTENCES

INTRODUCTION

The syntactic structure of an utterance helps to define which elements of a sentence are conveyed as old information and are marked as

new. The terms old information and presupposi tion refer to that part of

a sentence (i.e., an argument or a proposition) that a speaker/writer assumes a listener/reader knows about or takes for granted )- For instance ,

in the following sentence ,

1. The one who slapped Wally was Morris ,

the speaker assumes that the listener already knows that someone slapped

Wally. Thus, the proposition (SLAP , SOMEONE , WALLY ) represents presupposed or old information . Focal information , on the other hand , refers

to an element that receives intonational stress by the speaker and conveys new information . In the sentence above, the speaker asserts or focuses on the identity of the person who slapped Wally, namely Morris .2

In written communication , presupposed and focal markings generally

occur at predictable positions in a sentence. Information toward the

beginning of a sentence (e.g., the grammatical subject) is usually presupposed, whereas focal information normally appears near the end of a

sentence (e.g., the direct object in a transitive sentence). The presuppositional—focal markings within a sentence are indeed real psychologically . Subjects answer questions using sentence structures that

complement the presupposition-assertion relation of the question itself

(Bock , 1977 ; Tannenbaun & Williams , 1968). Similarly , subjects reliably

use old and new information di fferentially to verif y the truth val ue of

relations between sentences and pictures (Carpenter & Just, 1977; Hornby, 1974).

The present study investigated the role of presupposed and focal information in integrating sentences. Specifically , the experiments

1

The text analysis used in this paper corresponds to Kintsch ’s (1974)

system. His analysis system uses propositions as the basic unit of analyysis. Predicators and arguments are components of propositions: Predicators are concepts that express relations , and arguments are concepts

that provide referential information.

2

Throughout this paper we use the terms presupposition, given information , and old information synonymously; focus, assertion , and new information are also used synonymously . Although there are nuances of meaning

associated with each term, the present degree of precision does not require that such distinctions be made .

- ~~~~~ . . , .. — - -

p. 

.~~~~~~~ : 

~~
reported here introduced and tested an idea derived from the theory of

sentence integrat ion proposed by Clark and his colleagues (Carpenter &

Just , 1977; Clark & Haviland , 1974 , 1977; Haviland & Clark , 1974). According to the “given-new ” strategy . a sentence is integrated into me:.ory

in a three—step process. Beginning with Stage 1, the incoming sentence

is broken into its respective given (presupposed) and new (focal) components. During Stage 2, memory is sear ched for an anteceden t tha t matches

the given information . Finally, in Stage 3 (assuming the antecedent is

found), the new inform ation is integra ted in memory by append ing it to

the representation that contained the antecedent. Of course , if no antecedent is in memory , some fo rm of bridging is necessary for integra ting

the new information .

The primary evidence for Clark ’s theory has been gathered using a

comprehens ion parad igm . Typically , a subject is presented with two sentences , a context sentence and a target sentence , in that order , and is

instructed to read the target sentence with the intent of relating its

content to the context sentence . The sentences are constructed so that

the presupposed information in the target sentence either does or does

not have a direct antecedent provided by the context sentence . In accordance with given-new predictions , comprehension time of the target

sentence varies as a function of the presence or absence of a clearly defined contextual refer~ nt (Haviland & Clark , 1974 ; Yekov ich & Walker ,

1978).

Although the given-new theory provides a conceptual framework for

sentence integration , many aspects of the integrative process are not detailed . As an illustration , consider the following possible sentence

pairs. (Sentences 2 and 3 are context sentences.)

2. In the marketplace , the traitor warned the Arab about the

ambush.

3. Outside the tent , the Arab slung the rifle over a shoulder.

Target sentence : The Arab rode the camel through the village.

Sentences 2 and 3 each contain the def ini te referent , the Arab, and thus

when either sentence is presented as a context , the resul ting memory

structure will contain a direct antecedent. Presumably, then , integrating the target sentence with either context sentence should be a relatively straightforward processing task. Notice however , that in sentence

2, the Arab is focal information whereas in 3 that noun occurs as a presupposed argument.3 Does this difference influence the comprehensibility

of the targe t sentence , or are context sentences 2 and 3 equally effective as integrative agents? In its present form , the given-new model has

is generally held that the presupposition in a sentence consists of

one or more predicator-argument relational structures. The present

discussion focuses on only the argument portion of these relational

structures.

2

p.

- ~~

-. . —~- - .- —~~ . - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - . - .
—

has no transparent way of dealing with such a question . Although the

theory outlines a general memory search process (Stage 2), it does not

provide the theoretical machinery for evaluating whether the linguistic marking of a contextual antecedent affects that search process .

The present experiments were concerned with testing the plausibility

of this linguistic effect.

Our basic proposal is that information presented in context sentences is not processed neutrally. Rather, we believe that i-~com.ing

information is processed and interpreted in such a way that a reader

develops expectations about what can logically come next . This expectation by the reader complements the writer ’s in ten t of communicating

in accordance with conversational rules and postulates (Clark &

Haviland , 1977 ; Gr ice , 1975). We suggest further that the linguistic

properties of context information influence in a general way the

reader ’s expectation about subsequent content. In essence , the linguistic structure biases the reade r ’s interpretation by differentially

marking the sentence elements . Although not clairvoyant, the reade r

does use certain linguistically marked information in the context sentence to adjust expectations about a subsequent statement.

For present purposes we are going to argue that presupposition

and focus are two contextual markings that operate differently in

guiding the integratior1 of two sentences. The primary argument is simple . The reader’s task is to relate several pieces of incoming information . When an introductory sentence is input , the reader iden tifies

the presupposition and the focus on the basis of syntax . In the absence of extralinguistic context, the new information is more heavily

marked than the presupposition , and so the reader focuses on that element. In a sense , this focusing evokes a minimal expectation that

subsequent information should be related in some way to that focal

point. In other words , the focus in the context sentence becomes the

primary potential antecedent . Input of the second sentence causes

the reader to dissect that information into its given and new components and subsequently to compare those elements with the primary antecedent. If a match occurs (i.e., if the relation between antecedent

and anaphor is sa tisf ied ), the second sentence can be related easily

to the f irst. Howeve r , if no element in the second statement matches

the original focu s, the reade r must reinterpre t the con text sentence

and check for other poss ible referents.4

The foregoing ideas point directly to the importance of contextually marked information in the integrative process. Howeve r , we do

not want to ignore the contribution of the linguistic structure of

4

Th1s discussion is intended for the two-sentence case where the first

sentence introduces a concept and the second sentence provides elaboration of that concept. Consideration of the linguistic operators involve d in in tegra ting add itional ma terial is be yond the scope of th is

paper.

3 

1- . _ ____________ . . .
r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

-—-.

-- -

target information . (For further discussion , see Carpenter & Just,

1977.) Rather, we suggest that the linguistic markings of both the

context sentence and the target sentence contribute to successful integration . In simple terms , the context contributes some appropriately

(or inappropriately) marked information , and the target complements

with a correctly (or incorrectly) marked anaphor . Presumably , if

either the context or the target fails to mark the relevant integrati,ve

agent appropriately, comprehension will suffer.

The following sentences illustrate how context and target markings

jointly influence the comprehension process. (Sentences 4 through 7

are context sentences.)

4. The vandals started the fire in the basement with kerosene .

5. In the hotel, the fire awakened Albert from a nap.

6. In the hotel, the vandals doused the room with kerosene .

7. In the basement at the arsenal the room contained explosives.

Target sentence : The fire filled the room with smoke.

Sentence 4 is a context that appropria tely marks the fire as a focal

element. When this contextual focus is coupled with the presupposed

noun , the fire, in the target, an appropriate pair of markings result

for the sentences (FP). In other words, the sentence pair involving

4 has TWO appropriate markings for the repeated phrase . Sentence 5

marks the f ire as presupposed , and, consequently, when 5 is coupled

with the targe t, only the target presupposition serves as an appropriately marked noun (PP) . This partial condition can be typified by ONE

appropriate marking . Similarly, sentence 6 contributes the correctly

marked noun , the room, as a focal element , but that noun is misma rked

as a focal element in the target (FF). Thus, the pair involving 6

also has only ONE appropriate ly marked part of the repetition. The

combination involving 7 contains two sentences that are related explicitly via a repeated argument , but the repetition does not satisfy the

necessary antecedent-anaphor conditions . In 7 , the room occurs as presupposed, while in the target that noun is focal (PF). Since neither

occurrence of the repeated noun is marked appropriately , the PF set

has no appropriate markings for successful integration (ZERO) .

The foregoing illustrations suggest that the comprehensib ility of

the targe t sentence should vary as a function of the context conditions

just outlined. Specifically, our interpretation of appropriately

pa ired markings suggests that pairs involving TWOs (FP) ought to lead

to faster comprehension than ONE s (FF and PP), which in turn should be

faster than ZEROs (PF). These effects should obtain even though each

of the pairs is connected by a repeated argument .

4

___ . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r ~~

This paper reports two experiments that tested the ideas de tailed

above . Experiment I tested the hypotheses with active—voice sentence

conditions, using a comprehension-time paradigm . Experiment II replicated Experiment I and also extended the findings to passive—voice expressions. Finally , rating data are presented to provide independent

confirmation of the comprehension-time results .

EXPERIMENT I

Experiment I tested for an effect of reader expectation on comprehension of active-voice sentences. Alterations were made in the

first (context) sentence of a pair , thereby vary ing the presuppositional-focal relations of a noun that was repeated across two sentences.

For some sentence pairs, the presupposed information in the context was

repeated as the presupposition in the target (PP). For others, the

contextual presupposition recurred as a target sentence focus (PF).

The third kind of sentence pair involved a contextual focus and a target presupposition (FP) , and a fourth condition included a repeated

noun with a focus-focus (FF) relation. Finally , we added a control

condition in which no noun repetition (NR) occurred across the sentence

pair.

The effect of expectation was tested by measuring the time required to comprehend the targe t sentence unde r the vary ing contextual

conditions. The prunary expectation predictions are clear. FP pairs

should be comprehended fas ter than ei ther FF or PP pairs , which in

turn should be faster than PF pairs . In the PF case, howeve r , the

facilitative effect due to the repeated re fe rent might be overshadowed

by the inappropriate linguistic relations. Thus, it would not be unexpected if the PF combination was not facilitative at all in comparison

wi th two disconnected sentences ( i .e., NR).

Addi tional ly, we included a control to rule Out the possibility

that the effects could be due to the mere proximity of the repeated

~

oun. In active-voice sentences, the presupposition occurs early (e.g., • the grassnatical subject) , whe reas the focal elements occur near the end

• (e.g., the direct object in a simple transitive sentence). Thus , in

sentence pairs , FP pairings have only a few words separating the repeated noun , whereas PF pairs have considerable distance between the

noun repetition . In fact, a proximity explanation predicts the exact

ordering of conditions as the expectation hypothesis. In this first

experiment, half of the sentence pairs in each condi tion we re wri tten

so as to keep constant the number of intervening words between the repeated noun . The remaining sentence pairs did not contain th±s constraint. One effect of wording contrel is to reduce the strength of

the focal e lement by removing it from the sentence ’s end . This manipulation provides a rigorous test of the expectation hypothesis. If

proximity rather than reader expectation accounts for the comprehension

effects, then the proximity control will eliminate any ordering found

in the uncontrolled condition .

(L.~ -.- -
Me thod

Materials and Design. Fifty sentence sets we re constructed.

Each set was comprised of five context sentences and a single target

sentence . Coupling each context sentence with the target sentence resulted in pairs that satisfied the PP, FF , PP , PF , and NR conditions

outlined earlier. The sets were constructed by five graduate students

who we re naive with respect to the theoretical aspects of the study .

The students worked both independently and in a group .

Early in the sentence construction process , it became evident that

some experimental pairs (specifically PF) were more difficult to create

than others. Thus, the authors established the constraint that the most

difficult conditions for each set be constructed before the remaining

sentences in the set. So, for instance, FP sentence pairs were not

• written until there was group consensus that the PF representative was

suitable. Sentences were written to convey a complete thought, and pre—

cautions were taken to preserve proper temporal sequencing of context

and target events. All context sentences were active—voice declarative

statements, and all had the general grammatical components of a main

clause (The subject verbed the object) and two prepositional phrases

(preposition a/the object). The repeated noun always appeared in the

context sentence as the subject or object of the main clause. Typically, in active—voice sentences these two grammatical positions contain

• presupposed and focal information , respectively. Context sentences

within each set were matched for numbers of words, propositions, arguments, and intrasentential argument repetitions. Target sentences were

also active—voice statements and were of the grammatical form, “The

subject verbed the object - prepositional phrase .” All used ei ther the

subject or direct object as the anaphor. The only common information

across any given context-target pair was the repeated noun.

Half of the sets we re constructed so that a constant numbe r of

words separated the repeated noun regardless of the sentence condition

(x = 7 words). This control was accomplished with the use of the two

• prepositional phrases and is typified by the example set in the upper

portion of Table 1. Note , for instance, that the FP condition has the

two phrases at the end of the sentence , whe reas the PF condition sentence begins with the phrases. Although this manipulation alters the

overall stress pattern of the sentences somewhat, it does not eliminate

the presupposed and focal roles of the nouns of interest.

The remaining sentence sets we re constructed without abiding by

the proximity constraint. For those sets, the average numbe r of words

separating the noun repetition in the FP , FF , PP , and PF conditions

were 4 , 7 , 7 , and 10, respectively. A sample of a noncontrolled set

• is also given in Table 1.

6
Table 1

Example Sentence Sets Used in Experiment I

Proximity!

sentence condition Text

Controlled

FP The noise aroused Merlin from a

dream during the night.

FF The shadow from the door protected

the demon from exposure .

PP In the laboratory , Merlin slammed

the wand against the table .

PF Despite the locks on the door , the

demon stole the potions.

HR The shadow from the door protected

the potions from exposure .

TARGET Merlin cast the demon from the castle .

Noncontrolled

FP During the riot, the warden 3ent the

guard to the cell.

FF During the riot, the warden spotted

the prisoner with the gun.

PP During the riot, the guard spotted

the gun unde r the mattress.

PF During the riot, the prisoner grabbed

the gun unde r the mattress.

HR During the riot, the warden sent the

chaplain to the cell.

TARGET The guard shot the prisoner in the

chest.

For each subject , one context sentence was drawn from each of the

50 sets and paired with the target sentence to form 10 pairs of PF , FF ,

PP, PF, and HR sentences. Half of the sets for each sentence condition

were controlled for proximity, and half were noncontrolled. The assignment of sets to sentence condition was varied across equal-sized groups

of subjects according to one Latin square . Presentation order of the

pairs was separately randomized for each subject.

7

I
.

- 

- -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~-- 

Equipment and Reading Intervals. A Scientific Prototype two-field

tachistoscope was used to present the sentence pairs. The subject controlled the initiation and termination of each trial . Pressing the foot

switch brought the context sentence into the viewing field for a fixed

amount of time , and then the target appeared automatically, replacing

the context. The second sentence remained in view until the subject

pressed a button. Comprehension time--from the onset of the target

sentence to the button press--was measured by a Hunter Kiockounter.

Since equipment constraints necessitated fixed timing of context

sentences, preliminary testing determined the length of this reading

interval . Ten undergraduates were recruited to read the context sentences. These norm subjects were tested individually,, and each was

told to read quickly but to take enough time to understand the sentence .

Subjects were given 10 practice trials, followed by the 50 context sentences. Throughout the session , norm subjects initiated each reading

interval with the foot switch and terminated the trial with the button

press. Counterbalancing of contexts across subjects and sentence sets

was identical to the procedure mentioned earlier. A two—factor analysis

of variance (sentence condition by proximity) on reading times showed

no differences among the contexts. The sentence condition means were

2 ,648 , 2 ,627 , 2 , 577 , 2 ,636 , ana 2 ,613 milliseconds (msec) for FP, FF ,

PP, PF, and HR contexts, respectively (

~ > .10) . Further, controlled

(2 ,623 msec) and noncontrolled (2 ,618 msec) contexts did not differ,

and there was no interaction of the two factors (both F’s < 1). Therefore , the grand mean (2,620 msec) was selected as the fixed reading

interval for context sentences.

Procedure. Individual testing of subjects also occurred in the

main experiment. Subjects were told that the experimental task involved reading pairs of related sentences. Subjects we re informed

that the reading time was fixed for the first sentence of each pair,

and all students were specifically instructed to report every incidence

of insufficient reading time. The comprehension task itself was described to subjects with instructions similar to those of Haviland and

Clark (1974) . Subjects were told to read each first sentence carefully

• and completely because it was related to the second sentence of the

pair. Further , subjects were told to read the second sentence as

quickly as possible and to press the button when they understood what

the second sentence meant in relation to the first. Subjects went

through 60 total trials--lO practice and 50 test . The session lasted

50 minutes .

Subj ects. The subjects were 27 undergraduate education majors at

Arizona State University . Because of the fixed context reading interval , the criterion was established that subjects complete 90% of the

trials without reporting insufficient reading time . Two subjects did

not meet this requirement, and their data were not included in the

analyses.

8

4

— ——- --——-——-—-———-———-————-—————-——
Results and Discussion

The comprehension times from the experiment are susinarized in

Table 2. Because the experiments used such a large samp le of sentences

for each condition , statistical analyses were used that allow generalization to other items as well as other subjects (Clark , 1973) .

Table 2

Mean Targe t Comprehension Time (in milliseconds) as a

Function of Proximity and Sentence Condition ,

Experiment I

Sentence condition

Proximity FP FF PP PF HR Mean

Controlled 1,594 1,691 1, 784 1,903 1,933 1,781

Noncontrolled 1,664 1,734 1,810 1,836 1,891 1,788

Mean 1,629 1,717 1,797 1,869 1,912

This procedure requires computations involving two analyses of

variance--one analysis in which subjects are treated as the random effect and a second analysis in which the experimental sentences are used

as the random effect. The ratios that result from these separate analyses are then combined to form the minimum estimate of a quasi F ratio, referred to as minF’ . The formula for calculating minF ’ is

F

1

- F

• = F1 + F2

where F1 represents the F ratio in the subject analysis and F2 is given by the corresponding F ratio in the item analysis. The degrees of free—

dom Ci , j) are defined as

i = number of groups minus one

and

(F 1 + F 2

) 2

9

• ___________ 

—

• , - -.

- • -“ 0

_________ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

____
where F1 and F2 are the F ratios for the subject and item analyses, and

N1 and N2 refer to the denominator degrees of freedom in the subject

and item analyses, respectively. Analyses of variance were computed using sentence condition (FP , FF, PP, PF, NR) and proximity ( controlled ,

noncontrolled) as factors. In line with predictions, there was an effect for sentence condition, minF ’ (4,274) = 6.45, M5e1 = .023, MSe2 =

.079 , p < .001. There was no effect for proximity, and there was no

interaction of proximity and sentence condition (both minF’ < 1).

To make direct tests of the expectation predictions, we compared

comprehension—time differences according to the number of appropriate

markings contained in the sentence sets. 1’

~O refers to sets in which

the occurrence of the repeated noun was marked appropriately in each

sentence of the pair (FP) . ONE represents those sets in which only ONE

sentence of the pair appropriately marked the noun of interest (FF and

PP) . Finally, ZERO refers to those sets that had a repeated argument ,

- 

although neither sentence marked the concept appropriately (PF) . m dividual contrasts were performed using MSe1 = .026 and MSe2 = .053 as

the pooled estimates of error for subjects and items, respectively

(see Kirk , 1968 , pp. 384—387) . In line with our hypotheses, TWOs led .

to faster comp rehension than ONE s, minF ’ (1, 143) = 5.10 , p < .05 , and

ONE s were faster than ZEROs, minF ’ (1, 144) = 4.11, p < .05 . These

results demonstrate clearly that the linguistic markings of both context-sentence and target—sentence information influenced how easily

two sentences could be integrated. When the noun of interest was

marked appropriately in each sentence of the pair, as in the FP case,

integration proceeded smoothly . Conversely , when the repeated noun

was identified appropriately only once (in the context in FF and in

the target in PP) , or not at all (PF) , comprehension became increasingly difficult. This pattern of effects held despite the proximity

constraint. Thus, these data firmly supported the idea that readers

use contextual information to guide their interpretation of subsequent

content.

A final comparison between the PF and NR sentence conditions showed

no differences, F1 (1, 96) = 1.85 , F2 (1, 192) = .59, minF ’ < 1. This

result suggests that the repetition of a concept does not guarantee

facilitated comprehension of sentence pairs. When both occurrences of

the repetition appeared in the inappropriate positions, integrating two

sentences took as much time as integrating two disconnected statements.

Subjects reported insufficient reading time for contexts on only

.012 of the trials. Nevertheless, we substituted adjusted cell means

for these missing observations and repeated the analyses. None of the

results changed significantly . 0

10

I t
r -- -0~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ __

EXPERIMENT II

We have specifically hypothesized that the syntactically defined

linguistic markings of the repeated noun are responsible for producing

the expectation results. Experiment I affirmed this hypothesis using

active declaratives. Obviously, however, the use of only one sentence

type does not confirm the generality of the observed effects . Experiment II was therefore designed to replicate the results of Experiment

I and extend them to another type of sentence , sen tences in the passive

voice.

Passives were chosen because they have several desirable properties

for comparison with actives. First , passive transformations retain

propositional invariance in relation to their active counterparts. This

f act assures congruency of semantic content in the two sentence types.

Second, one function of the passive transformation is to alter the

lingui stic markings of sentence elements (see Anisfeld & Xlenbort,

1973) . For instance , 

~~~ 

is presupposed in the active sentence , The

boy hit the ball over the fence, whereas it is asserted in the passive

expression , The ball was hit over the fence by the boy.~ In the realm

of sentence pairs, a voice transformation of one sentence alters the

pairing relation of a repeated concept. For instance ,

Context: The pitcher threw the ball ove r the plate .

Active Target: The boy hit the ball over the fence .

Passive Target: The ball was hit over the fence by the boy.

The repetition of the ball in the pair using an active target has an FF

(Pocue.’Focus) relation , whereas the pair using the passive target has

an PP (Pocus-Presupposition) marking set.

Experiment II used two target sentence types (active and passive

voice) in cosg,jnatj on with the five sentence conditions from the pre- 0

vious experiment (F? , i’~ , Pp, PF, NR) . Again , comprehension time was

the measure of interest. If the expectation hypothesis is to be supported , the ordering of sentence conditions should be parallel for

active and passive targets. That is, for each voice, F? pairs should

be comprehended more quickly than PP or PP pairs, which in turn should

be faster than PP pairs. Obviously , however , active targets should be

comprehe nded more quickly than passives.

Method

Materials, Design, and Reading Interval. The materials from Experiment I were altered for Experiment II. The 50 sets of context

sentences were changed in two ways. First, since the proximity control

had no apparent effect, one prepositional phrase was deleted from each

11

- 

- -
0 • •0 •

~~~~ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ___

con text sentence , thereby reducing sentence length. Second , all context sentences were rewritten so that the grammatical structure was

“The subject verbed the object——prepositional phrase .” This change

had the eff ect of making the linguistic pairing relations noncontrolled

for the number of words that separated the noun repetition. (Note that

the analogous condition in Experiment I produced the smallest expectation effects.) The 50 sentence sets were then randomly divided into

two groups. Half the target sentences remained in the active voice ,

and the other half was transformed to the passive voice. Active targets averaged 7 .56 words in length, and passives averaged 9.96 words.

Samples of the resulting materials are provided in Table 3.

Table 3

Example Sentence Sets Used in Experiment II

Ta rget voice!

sentence condition Text

Active

FP The astronaut readied the craft for

the descent.

FF The scientists watched the landing

on the screen.

PP The craft relayed the data to the

scientists.

PF The landing represented a triumph

for the scientists .

NR The scientists watched the picture

on the screen .

TARGET The craft made the landing near the

crater.

0 

Passive

F? The lifeguard warned the diver

about the current.

FF The lifeguard spotted the shark

from the shore.

PP The diver photographed the eel

beneath the boat .

PF The shark noticed the movement in

the water.

NR The lifeguard scanned the coastline from the tower.

TARGET The diver was attaclced by the

shark near the reef.

12

_________ - 

0 

‘- ‘ b. •. - • - - •. .
_____ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~ - • ~~~~~~~~ 0 • -

~~~~~~ __ _ _ _ _ 

For each subject, a context—target pair was drawn from each set

to make up 10 pairs in each FP , FF, PP, PF, and NR sentence condition.

Half of these pairs had active targe t sentences, and half had passive.

One Latin square was used to counterbalance sentence type and sentence

condition across equal-sized groups of subjects. Presentation orde r

of the sentence pairs was separately randomized for each student .

The context sentence reading interval was established in a manner

identical to the earlier description , using 10 subjects for the forming.

Again , no diffe rences we re observed in context sentence reading times,

and the resulting fixed interval was set at the grand mean of 2,420 msec.

Procedure and Subjects. The procedure and instructions used in

Experiment II were the same as those for Experiment I. Twenty-five

unde rgraduates from the College of Education at Arizona State University volunteered for the experiment in return for extra class credit.

All of the subjects met the 90% context reading criterion .

Results and Discussion

Table 4 summarizes target sentence comprehension times for the 10

experimental cells. As expected, active targets were read and understood more quickly than passives, minF’ (1, 72) = 37.44, MSe]. = .04,

MSe2 = .082, p < .001. This result replicates the well—documented

active—passive difference (e.g., Gough , 1965; Savin & Perchonock , 1965)

and thus requires no elaboration here .

Of prime interest was the effect for sentence condition , minF’

(4 , 269) = 10.73 , MSe 1 = .02 , MSe 2 = .061, p < .001, and the lack of

an interaction between target voice and sentence condition , minF ’ < 1.

Taken together, these general results support the robustness of the

• expectation effect for both active and passive sentences.

Table 4 shows that the predicted patterns of comprehension time

conform closely to the observed orderings of the sentence conditions.

To test specific predictions , comparisons between sentence conditions

were made by considering the numbe r of appropriate linguistic markings

present in the sentence pairs (see Experiment I). The first prediction

concerned the general replicability of the expectation results from the

previous experiment, and was tested by comparing the overall sentence

condition means. These contrasts showed that TWOs were integrated

more quickly than ONE s, minF’ (1, 143) = 10.84 , p < .001 , and ONEs were

faster than ZEROs, minF ’ (1 , 143) 5.99 , p < .05 (the error terms for

these contrasts were MSe1 = .019 and MSe 2 = .044) . Thus , the idea that

readers use linguistic markings to guide comprehension was reaffirmed

in Experiment II.

13

4

— ~~ - —-- — • — -~~~ — --- - 0~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~ — ~ _ 0_0 _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — —-- -——•— • • • • ~~~0 

•.

___~~~ •
_______________________ 0- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ • -__

Table 4

Mean Targe t Comprehension Time (in milliseconds) as a

Function of Target Voice and Sentence Condition

Experiment II

Sentence condition

Targe t voice FP FF PP PP NR M~~n

Active 1,497 1,634 1,671 1,826 1,906 1,706

Passive 1,788 1,982 1,938 2,030 2,153 1,978

Mean 1,642 1,808 1,804 1,928 2,029

The second prediction stated that the effects of linguistic markings would be parallel for active and passive targets. Pa rt of the

confi rmation for this prediction was assured by the nonsignificant sentence condition by target voice interaction. Additionally, separate

assessments were made for actives and passives by considering compre—

hension differences due to the numbe r of appropriate markings in the

sentence pairs . For active targets, the contrasts mirrored previous

results ; for TWOs versus ONEs , minF ’ (1, 142) = 4.93 , p < .05 , and

for ONEs versus ZEROs, minP ’ (1, 142) = 6.20 , p 1 .05. For passive

targets, TWOs resulted in faster integration than ONEs, minF ’ (1, 142)

= 6.06 , p ~- .05, but ONEs did not differ significantly from ZEROs despite the 70 msec difference in the right direction, F1 (1, 48) = 3.61,

F2 (1 , 96) = 1.40 , minF ’ = 1.01 (MSe1 = .018 and MSe2 = .044 for these

contrasts). Failure to obtain this difference may have been due to a

time-limit criterion that subjects use in a comprehension task like the

present one . Suppose that subjects adopt an integration strategy that

includes a “limited-time” memory search component . Logically , as sentence complexity increased (from active to passive) and appropriate

markings decreased (from TWO to ZERO), identifying and comparing the

repeated instances of the concept would require more search time. If

a time limit was reached before the memory search was complete , subjects might resort to bridging or simply settle for incomplete comprehension. In bridging , there is no reason to assume that it takes less

time to construct implicit propositions for passive ONEs than for passive ZEROs; thus ONES would not differ from ZEROs. As far as incomplete

comprehension is concerned , the least integratable pairs (passive ZEROs)

would not differ from slightly more coherent expressions (passive ONES) 0 because of an attenuation effect. These possibilities would explain

the present results and also provide additional meaning to the equivalence of PF and NR sentence conditions. As in the previous experiment,

the present PF-NR conditions did not differ from each other; for actives,

minF ’ < 1, and passives minF ’ (1, 142) = 1.87 , MSe1 = .02 , MSe2 = .061,

p < .10 .

14

A -—---.-- 0 • - - -

~~~~~~~ ._._.i__•_ _

~

__J•_•0__ -_- .-

~ -- _-------- - S.— • •

~ —- “.— — . 5 -- • — -5-- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • •

~~~~~~ _~~ -- ,.
The proportion of missing observations due to insufficient reading time was only .010. Analyses based on adjusted cell means did not

alter the patterns of results reported above.

Before turning to a general discussion, we would like to consider

the adequacy of comprehension time as a measure that accurately refleets the mental processes involved in comprehending sentences. Gen-

• erally , comprehension time is seen as a rather subjective measure because of the lack of precision of the dependent variable . Subjects are

free to interpret the instructions in several ways, thus using individual (uncontrolled) criteria for comprehension . Despite this subjectivity, comprehension time has now been used several times and has yielded

consistent patterns of results (see Haviland & Clark , 1974; Yekovich &

Walker , 1978; Singer , 1977) . Furthermore , converg ing data have been

reported (especially for Haviland & Clark ’s findings) , using other dependent measures (e.g., Garrod & Sanford, 1977; Hupet & LeBouedec ,

1977). Nevertheless , we decided to check the stability of our results

by having people rate some of the sentence pairs from the second experiment . Sixty subjects were recruited to rate SO pairs (5 from each of

the 10 experimental conditions) according to the dimension of continu—

ability. Continuability was de fined to the subjects as “how easy, it

would be to write a third sentence that continued logically from the

• first two.” The ratings were made on a 7-point scale , with 1 being

difficult and 7 easy . The obvious expectation was that ease of comprehension would be reflected by high ratings of continuability .

Table 5 presents the results of those ratings according to the number of appropriate markings present in the pa irs . NRs have also been

included for comparison . It is clear from these data that subjects’

ra tings generally reflected the comprehension-time results of Experiment II. For actives, TWOs were rated as more continuable than ONEs ,

whi ch were slightly higher than ZEROs . For passives, TWOs were higher

than ONEs, but ZEROs were also slightly higher than ONEs, thereby showing a small discrepancy with the comprehension—time results. Finally ,

the low ratings of the NR conditions suggest that our subjects noticed

the presence and absence of the repeated noun. Thus, this simple check

provided additional confirmation of the comprehension-time results .

GENERAL DISCU SSION

The main finding of this study is that linguistic characteristics

of both context and target information affect the integration of sentences. When common information was marked appropriately in each of

the two sentences, comprehension was facilitated, wherea s inappropr iate

markings in one or both sentences led to slower comprehension . These

effects held when the proximity of the repeated information was controlled (Experiment I), and also when targe t sentences occurred in

either the active or the passive voice (Experiment II). Since most

psycholinguists would agree that actives and passives are “weak” with

15

P — -.-

_ _ ____

~

-— -.- .. . •:.

~~~~~~~~~

- - --- •-
0 ~~ — • • • • ---—- -.— —--..-- -.—— ---- •—------• • - • ,- ,- -.-- — -----5- --—--- .0 --- — — • ---

respect to presupposition-assertion relations (e.g., Bock , 1977; Hornby ,

1974), this latter result provides especially strong evidence for the

expectation effect.

Table 5

Mean Continuability Ratings for 50 Sentence Pairs

in Experiment II , as a Function of

Target Voice and Number of Appropriate Markings

Number of markings

Target voice TWO ONE ZERO NR Mean

Active 5.87 4.97 4.86 3.38 4.91

Passive 5. 71 5.10 5.20 4.48 5.11

Mean 5 .79 5.04 5,03 3.93

Note : Each mean is based on 300 observations.

The effects of reade r expectation found in these experiments can

be fit comfortably into the notion of the “discourse pointer ” (Ca rpenter

& Just , 1977) . According to Carpenter and Just, a discourse pointer is

a mental symbol that designates the current topic of a text. Sentence

integration involve s relating incoming informa tion to that designa ted

memory representation . Since this relational process is influenced by

the linguistic structure of the incoming information, Carpenter and

Just contended that “information marked as old in the [ incoming or

target] sentence should usually correspond to the contents of the

pointer ” (1977, p. 220). In support of this idea, Carpenter and Just

presented data showing that targe t sentences took longe r to integrate

when the repeated information in the target sentence was marked inappropriately (as new) than when it was marked appropriately (as old) .

This study has viewed sentence integration as involving pairs of

linguistic markings of the information common to both context and target sentences. This idea maintains that readers identify linguistically marked candidate information in the context sentence , expecting

to use it in understanding the target. In the absence of other linguistic cues , the most likely candidate antecedent is contextual information marked as new. Additionally, the linguistic mark ing of the

anaphor presupposes the existence of a direct antecedent (Haviland &

Clark , 1974), and thus the impor tant integra tive informa tion in the

target should ideally be old. Consequently , integrating two sentences

is simplified whe n the common informa tion across the pair is in troduced

as new (focal) and then repeated as old (presupposed) . The results of

16

. 4

- ~~~ — — ~~~~~ -~~~~~ -

~~~~ -,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~— - -—-~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~~~~~~ .- ~ 0 0 

-

~~~ ~~~~~~~~—~~~~ - • —--
both experiments clearly support this interpretation and further show

that when important information was misrnarked in the context sentence ,

comprehension difficulties arose . Thus , the present experiments show

that the linguistic marking of contextual information is one way to

determine an initial setting f~ r the discourse pointer. Put simply ,

the linguistic mark ings in the contex t sen tence allow the reader to

mentally set the pointer to information deemed topically important.

An idea closely related to the discourse pointer construct concerns

the temporal nature of integrative processing . Research has generally

implied that target information necessary for integration is identified

first and then memory is searched for any matching antecedent (e.g.,

Haviland & Clark , 1974). This view has two interdependent implications .

First, sentence integration is presumably a backward procer3 (i.e.,

from target to context or input to memory); second , all context in--

formation in memory is equally accessible as a direct antecedent . The

present results clearly disconfirm the second implication . Suppose

that integrating two sentences is backward in nature and further that

all context information in memory is equally accessible . Since the

old information in the target is the important integrative agent, that

information will be identified and memory will be searched for any anteceden t. Accord ing to this logic , presupposed information in the context sentence is as accessible as the contextual focus and thus search

time in memory should be comparable for each kind of marked information .

As a consequence , comprehension time should not vary as a fu nction of

contextual marking . In terms of this study , PP and PP conditions

should not differ. However, the data in Tables 2 and 4 present a differen t resul t. PP and PP conditions took rel iably differen t amounts

of time to comprehend . At the minimum , these results imply that if

sentence integration is a backward operation , all contextual information

in memory is not equally accessible . A modified backward process could

be hypothesized, howeve r , by invok ing a spreading activa tion assumption

(Collins & Loftus , 1975). That is, it would be reasonable to claim

that linguistic markings control the amount of activation a concept reO ceives when it is processed for memory storage . Logically, when context information is input , new information would receive greater activation than old information . Consequently , when the given information

in the target is identified , and the memory search initiated, the contextual focus would have a greater probability of access than the contextual presupposition due to greater activation. This access difference would lead to accurate predictions about the comprehension of FP

and PP pairs.

Essentially, the linguistic effects demonstrated here have shown

how linguistic markings affect the introduction and subsequent elabo—

ration of a single concept. In our experiments the only common information across the two sentences was a single noun, as opposed to several repeated concepts or propositions . Thus, the present studies

have provided a test of sentence integra’~ion where two sentences are

minimally connected. As already mentioned , this fact may have attenuated the linguistic effects , since subjects may have reverted to

17

4

~~~ _ 

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ *~ O,.,• •.. ~~ . 0 - - —
-5-,-- . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

bridging or incomplete comprehension . Conditions beyond minimal connectedness provide a much more complex issue , and as a result may

alter subjects’ strategies for integrating information. For instance ,

the amount of repeated information across sentences may modify how

linguistic operators are used to identify antecedents and anaphors .

Fi nally , our experiments have viewed integration within a twosentence framework . One immediate question to be answered concerns

how linguistic operators function in extended text. For example , when

repeated information occurs over several sentences, are there patterns

of linguistic markings that underlie the repeti tion?5 Such questions

deserve empirical attention as they are prerequisite to a complete

understanding of the integrative process .

5

Manelis (1978) has studied the sequencing of propositions connected

to each other by repeated concepts . His research shows that the

sequence of connections is important in both comprehension of and memory for text . One can interpret his sequence effects in terms of u n —

guistic patterns of connections .

18

.1

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ——- T~

.... . ________ 4
______ 

~— —-- — -• --- ~~~~~ -- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • • • ——— • •

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • ______

REFERENCES

Anisfcld, M., & Klenbort , I. On the Functions of Structural Paraphrase : The View from the Passive Voice . Psychological Bulletin,

1973, 79, 117—126 .

Bock , J. K. The Effects of a Pragmatic Presupposition on Syntactic

Structure in Question Answering . Journal of Verbal Learning and

Ve rbal Behavior, 1977 , 16 , 723—734 .

Carpe nter, P. A., & Just, M. A. Integrative Processes in Comprehension . In D. La Berge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Perception and

Comprehension. Hillsdale , N.J .: Lawrence Eribaunt Associates,

1977.

Clark , H. H . The Language-as-Fixed-Effect Fallacy : A Critique of

Language Statistics in Psychological Research . Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 335—359 .

Clark , H. H., & Haviland , S. E. Psychological Process as Linguistic

Explanation. In D. Cohen (Ed.-), Explaining Linguistic Phenomena.

Washington: Hemisphere Publishing , 1974.

Clark , H. H., & Haviland , S. E. Comprehension and the Given-New Contract. In R . Freedle (Ed .), Discourse Processes: Advance s in

Research and Theory (Vol. 1). Norwood , N.J.: Ablex Publishing ,

1977.

Collins , A. M., & Loftus, E. F. A Spreading—Activation Theory of

Semantic Processing . Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 407-428.

Garrod , S., & Sanford , A. Interpreting Anaphoric Relations: The

Integration of Semantic Information While Reading . Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16 , 77—90.

Gough , P. B. Grammatical Transformations and Speed of Understanding .

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, 5, 107-111.

Grice , H. P. Logic and Conversation . In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),

Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, Speech Acts) . New York: Academic

Press , 1975.

Havi].and, S. B., & Clark , H. H. What’s New? Acquiring New Informa tion

as a Process in Comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 512—521.

Hornby , P. A. Surface Structure and Presupposition . Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 530—538.

19

— S - ~~~ - 

— -

• —-5— —— — --- —~~~~ --~~~~~ .- . ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ -, --~~

———~ - A
Hupet, M ., & LeBouedec, B. The Given-New Contract and the Constructive

Aspect of Memory for Ideas. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 69—76 .

Kintsch , W. The Representation of Meaning in Memory. Hillsdale, N.J.:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , 1974.

Ki rk , R. E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral

Sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1968.

Manelis, L. Determinants of Processing for a Simple Proposi tional

Structure . Manuscript in review for publication, 1978.

Savin , H. B ., & Perchonock , E. Grammatical Structure and the Immediate

Recall of English Sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 1965 , 4 , 348—353 .

Singer , M. Processes of Inference during Sentence Encoding . Paper presented at the 85th convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1977 .

Tanne nhaum , P. H., & Williams, F. Generation of Active and Passive

Sentences as a Function of Subject or Object Focus. Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 246—250 .

Wjner , B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York :

McGraw—Hill, 1971.

Yekovich , F. R., & Walker , C. H. Identifying and Using Referents in

Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 1978, 17, 265—277.

20

-, 

0 

-— -,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

O

O -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — - 0~ . - ___
DISTRIBUTION 

4 OASO IM&RAI 

7 HOOA IDAMI·CSZI 

HQOA IDAPE PBRI 

11001\ IOAMA ARI 

HOOA IDAPE HRE·I'Ol 

HOOA ISGRD·ID: 

HOOA IOAMI·OOT·CI 

HOOA IDAPC·PMZ·Al 

HOOA (O"'CH·PPZ·AI 

HOOA IOAPE·HREI 

HOOA IOAPE·MPO·Cl 

HOOA IOAPE·DWI 

HOOA (OAPE·HRLI 

HOOA IOAPE·CPSI 

HOOA IDAFD·MFAI 

HOOA IOARD·ARS·Pl 

HOOA IOAPC·PAS·AI 

HOOA IOUSA OR) 

lt(JOA lOAM() RORI 

ltOil/1 101\SGI 

liOilA IDA IQ.PII 

I Clou·l. Con\ult Oov(DA·OTSGI. Adelphi, MD 

Mol A"t. Huon Rrs. OOOR&E. DAD IE&LS) 

ItO USARAL. /\PO Sedttl~ . ATTN: ARAGP R 

HO Fo"t Auuv. ATTN: AFKA·OI Tl 

2 HO Fifth Atmv. Ft Sam Houston 

I Ou . Army Stf Studies Ole . ATTN: OAVCSA IDSPI 

1 Olr· Chief u l Sol. tud• ~' Ole 

llt:SI't:R. ATTN CPS/OCP 

( hu Aomy Lolo. cnt~1011 . ATTN. RSB Cluel 

I . The Army L•h. Pentagon. ATTN: ANRAl 

I Ole , Aut~ o l the Army IR&OI 

Tech Suwor 1 Ole. OJCS 

USASA, Arlll'!tton. ATTN· IARD·T 

USA AKh Olr.. Ourh~m. ATTN: l oll' Scocfl<.'l!S 011 

'J \JSARIEM. N~tork . ATTN SGRD·UE CA 

USA I rt:. I 1 Cl.oylou. 1\ I IN :; II 11: MO 1\ 

USAIMA. Ft OrdiJ'I. A I fN· A I SU·t.:TD·OM 

USAIMA, Ft Braqco, ATTN: Marrwatlib 

US WAC Ctr So Sch, Ft McClellen. ATTN: Llh 

US WAC Ctr & Sch. Ft McClellan. ATTN: Tnq Oor 

USA Ou•termastcr Sch, Ft Lee. ATTN: ATSM·TE 

lntelliqence Mate11al Oev Ole, EWl, Ft HolalJIId 

USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gnr<lon. ATTN: ATSO EA 

USA C.hilo'l•"" Clo & . r t Hanulttm, ATTN: 1\TSC·TE·RD 

USA 1 SCH. F o Eustis. ATTN: Educ Atfvosor 

USA War Colle<IC. Carlosl•• Baooacks, ATTN: Lob 

'} WRAIR, Nruouo>wrhoa lly Dov 

I DLI. SDA. Mnuocrr.v 

1 USA ConCI!I!I Anal Agcy. Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA MR 

1 USA Conoept Anal Agcy. Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA·JF 

1 USA Arctoc Test Ctr. APO ~atllc. ATTN: STEAC·PL·MI 

1 USA Arctic Test Ctr, APO ~•ttl~ . ATTN: AMSTE·PL· TS 

I USA Armament Cm<l. Redsto,.. Ane~. ATTN: ATSK-TEM 

I USA Armament Cmd. Rock Island, ATTN: AMSAR·TDC 

I FAA·NAFEC. Atlantoc Citv. ATTN: Library 

1 FAA·NAFEC. Atlantoc Coty, ATTN: Human Engr Br 

1 FAA Aeronautical Cto, Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC·440 

2 USA Fld Arty Sch. Ft S.ll. ATTN: Library 

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox. ATTN: Library 

1 liSA Atn10r Sch. Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB·DI·E 

1 USA Arn10r Sch. Ft Knox. ATTN: A TSB· DT TP 

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Ko10•. ATTN· ATSB·CO-AD 

AR I 0 1\ttohullo n Lost 

21 

2 HOUSACDEC. l't Ood, ATTN: Lihrary 

1 HOUSACOEC. Ft 0111. ATTN: ATEC- EX - E Hum Far:loO> 

2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin Harooson. ATTN. LoiM:u y 

USAPACOC, Ft Bent•"""' H01roi~o1n . ATTN· 1\TCP ·HR 

USA Comm- Eicct Sch. Ft Mononuuth. ATTN · ATSN - EA 

USAEC. F1 Monmouth. ATTN: AMSEL Cl HOP 

USAEC. Ft Monmouth. ATTN: AMSEL - PA P 

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL·· S1 - CB 

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C. Fact Dev Bo 

USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Abero~rn . ATTN· AMXSY . P 

Etlyewood Arsenal, Aberdeen. ATTN : SAREA HL H 

USA Ootl Ctr 81 Sch, Ahertleen, ATTN: ATSL- TEM - C 

2 USA Hum Engr Lab. Ahcrcleen. ATTN: Ubrar\•/Dir 

1 USA Combat Arms Tug Bd. Ft Bennoo111. ATTN : Ad Su11ervosor 

1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit. Ft Bennirl!l. ATTN: Choct 

USA Infantry Bd. Ft Benning, ATTN : STEBC TE- T 

USASMA. Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS LRC 

USA Aor Del Sch. Ft Bliss. ATTN: ATSA CTD ME 

USA Au Del Sclo. Fr Blou, ATTN: Tech lih 

USA Aor Del Btl. Fo Al,.s. ATTN: FILES 

USA Air Del Bd. Ft Bton. ATTN: STEBD PO 

USA Cmd & General Stl College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN : L•h 

USA Cmd So General Stl Collcoge, Ft Leaveowoo1h. ATTN: ATSW- SE L 

USA Cmot & General Sol CnlleoJC. Ft leav .. nwwol•. ATTN: Eol Arlvisor 

liSA Coml omed " "'" Crnht Dr v Ao·1. F1 lo•Jv,.oowollh, ATTN : OepC1lo 

USA Comblnecl Arms Cmbt Oev Al. 1. Ft L~avenworth . ATTN: CCS 

USA Combo<*! Arms Cmbt Dev Act. Ft lt .. en-m, ATTN: ATCASA 

USA ComhinPd Arms C:mbt Oev Act, Ft Luvenworth. ATTN: ATCACO -E 

USA C"onlun•·<f """' ConiH Dl!v Ao·t, f t LH3v,.nworth. ATTN: ATCACC: .. : :I 

1 USAFCOM. Nogho Vosion lnb. Ft A••lvuoo. ATIN: AMSEl- NV- SO 

3 USA Computet Sys Cmd. Ft Be lvoir. ATTN· Tech library 

USAMEROC. Ft Bclvooo . ATTN: SISFB· 00 

USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvnor, ATTN: Library 

USA T0f109raphic lab. Ft Belvoor. ATTN: ETl TD- S 

USA Topographic lab. F1 Belvoir. ATTN: STINFO Cc:ro1cr 

USA TnolQ9ratlhoc lah. Ft Belvou . ATTN: ETL GSL 

liSA lnll llu~ ow•· C:u "'Sch. f 1 1-ln.u:hw·.o. 1\ fTN· C TU MS 

USA looellogcnc.: t.:to & Sch. Ft Hu.-:hm ~. A I TN· 1\ TS- CTD-MS 

USA lnoello!JI!nce Cto & Sch, Ft HuOK.-huca. ATTN: ATSI - TE 

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI- TEX .. GS 

USA Intelligence Cto & Sch, Ft H1••chuca. ATTN : ATSI- CTS- OR 

USA lntelli!)llncl! Cto & Sch. Ft Huachna. ATTN ATSI - CTO OT 

USA lntelhgence Cor & ScJ•. Ft Huachuca. ATTN : ATSI - CTD- CS 

USA In telligence Cto & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN : OAS/SRO 

USA ln lelli!fl'nco: Ctr & Sch. F1 HuiChuc,r. ATTN · ATSI- TEM 

USA Intelligence Cu & Sch. Ft Huochur..1, ATTN . lrhury 

1 CDR. HO Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ret Dr• 

'2 CDR, USA Eltctronoc Prvy Grd. ATTN : STEFP MT - S 

1 HO. TCATA, ATTN: Tecto Lobraoy 

1 HO. TCATA. ATIN: AT CAT .QP·O. Ft Hoort 

1 USA Recruitong Cmd, Ft Sheridan, ATTN: USARCPM·P 

1 ~nior Army Adv .• USAFAGOO/TAC. Elgin Af Aox Fhl Nu 9 

1 HO. USARPAC. OCSPER. APO SF 96558. ATTN: GPPE·SE 

1 Stimson Lib, Audemy of Helllth Sciences. Ft Sam Hou<ton 

1 Marine Cor(M lnst .• ATTN: Dllll·MCI 

1 HO. USMC. Commandant, ATTN: Code MTMT 

1 HO. USMC. Commandant, ATTN : Code MPf.2().28 

2 USCG ~my. New London. ATTN: Admiuion 

2 USCG ~my. New London, ATTN : Library 

1 USCG TrainingCtr, NY. ATTN: CO 

1 USCG Tramint Ctr. NY. ATTN: E<fuc Svc Ole 

1 USCG. Pwchol Res 81, DC. ATTN· GP 1162 

I HO Mitl·Range Br. MC Ott, Ouanticu. ATTN: PlloS Oiv 
1 US Martne Cor11s lrJrson Ole, AMC. AleKIIndrr•. ATTN· AMCGS - r 

1 USATRAOOC, F1 Monroe, ATTN: ATRO- EO 

6 USATRAOOC, F1 Monroe, ATTN: ATPR AD 

1 USATF1AOOC, F1 Monroe, ATTN: ATTS EA 

1 USA For~s Cmd, F1 McPhet!oOII, ATTN: Ltluary 

2 USA Avtalion Tn18ci. F1 Rur.k•" · ATTN: STEBG- PO 

I USA Agcy lor Avralron Salo1v. F1 Ruc~ur , ATTN: library 

I UsA Agcy tor Avrution Safe ty, Ft Rucker , ATTN: Educ Advisor 

I USA Aviation Sch, F1 Rucker, ATTN: PO Ora-r 0 

I HOUSA Av•al•on Svs Cmd, S1 LoUt~. ATTN: AMSAV- ZOR 

1 USA Avt~ltOII Sy, Te'l Ac:l , Edwar <l< AFR, ATTN: SAVTE --T 

I USA Air 0<>1 Sr.h, F 1 liltS\, II l'TN: 1\ fSA TFM 

I USA Au Mul•hly P,,ch lit Dr•v Lah, Mollt'll Fht, ATTN: SAVOL · AS 

liSA Avla1ion Sch, Rll'S Tng Mgt, F1 Rucker, ATTN: ATST- T - RTM 

USA Avialton Sch, CO, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST- 0 - A 

HO. DARCOM, Ale•androa, ATTN: AMXCO - TL 

HO, DARCOM, Ahlxandua, ATTN: COR 

US MitltJtry Academy, West Point. ATTN: Serials Unit 

US Military Acldllmv, West Point, ATTN: Ole ol MiltlthShlt 

US Milita•v A,·,oriemy, Wr <l Point. ATTN: ~AOR 

USA St.,.,datdllilton Go. UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE - GC 

I Ole of N~vat Rsch, A•hngton. ATTN: Code 452 

3 Ole of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 458 

Ole of N.ivat Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 450 

Ok of Naval Rsch, Arlit~qton, ATTN: Corte 441 

N.tv~t l AeH><IJC Mcd ~s l a h, Pensacola, ATTN: Acous Sch Orv 

N.tval ~Hl\I K' Me<l Rrs Lab. l'euSKola, ATTN: Code L51 

"'·••·•I ~ruwc Mo:d firs l au. t'ensacol~. ATTN: Code lS 

Ch"'l of N~vl'"''· ATTN. Pers-OR 

N/\V/\IRSTA, Norloll.;, ATTN: Slle tv Ctr 

N~v Oceanographtc, DC, ATTN: Code 6251, Cherts & Tech 

Ct•nlet of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ctr 

N~vAuSvsC , ATTN· AIR ·S313C 

I N•v 8uMed, ATTN: 113 

1 NawHelic:opterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601 

1 AFHRL IFTI Williams AFB 

1 AFHRL ITT I lowoy AFB 

1 AFHRl (AS) WPAFB, OH 

2 AFHRl IOOJZI Brooks AFB 

1 AFHRL IOOJNI ac:kl~nd AFB 

HOUSAF IINYSOI 

HOUSAF IDPXXAI 

I AFVTG IROI Randoloh AFB 

J AMRL IHEI WPAFB, OH 

'2 AF lou o t To;ch, WPAFB, OH, ATTN: ENE/Sl 

I ATC IXPTOl Randol11h AFC 

liSAF Al'rrtMcct Lth, Bro<tks AFB ISUl 41, ATTN: DOC SEC 

AFOSR INLl. Arhnglon 

1\F Log Cmrl. McCirll.rn AFO. ATTN: ALCIOPCRB 

Au Force Acaclemy, CO, ATTN: Dept of Bel Sen 

5 NavPers tit Ot v Crr, San Otego 

2 Navy Mecl Neuropsvclliatric Rsch Un11, San OtegO 

I N~v Electronic Lab, San D•C!IO. ATTN: Res lab 

Nav TuoqC.,n, San Dle<JO, ATTN: Code ~Lib 

•PO\tGraSch, Montv" 'Y. ATTN: Code SSA. 

N .• vPnstGriiSc:h, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124 

N.ovTu~tEQuit>Ctr , Orlao<to. ATTN · Tflch Ltb 

US Dept of LJbot. DC, ATTN: Monpower Admin 

US Dellt of .krst•ce, DC. ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin 

Na1 Bur ol Standarcts, DC, ATTN: Computer Into Section 

1 Na1 Clflaring House lor MH- Info, Rockville 

1 Denver Federal Ctr. lakewood, ATTN: BlM 

12 Oefenw Oocument~tion Center 

4 Orr Psych, Armv Hq, Russell Ofes, C.,.,berra 

Screntllrc 1\dvsr, Mrl Bd, Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberre 

Mil _. Arr Attache, Austrian Embauy 

Ccntr~ dt! Recherche Des Facteurs, Humaine de Ia Oeftnw 

Natrnnale, Brunets 

2 Clllt;trfilft Jouot Slatf W.nhrnyton 

1 C/Air Still, Royal Can.O•an AF, ATTN: Pe" Std Anal Br 

3 Chot l. Clned•un Del Rsr.h Staff, ATTN: C/CROSIWI 

4 O••l"h Del Stall, Oritosh Emttauv. W.nhrngton 

22 

Del & Ctvtllnst of Enviro Medicine, Canada 

AIR CRESS, Kenalngton, ATTN: Into Sys8r 

Miiitaerpsyknlogisk Tjeneste, Copenllayen 

Milit11y Attache, French Eml»uy, ATTN: Doc Sec 

M<!ciecin Chef, C.E.R.P A.- Atsetlll, Toulou/ Navul Fo ancc 

Prin Scientific Oft, Alll>l Hum Engr Rsch Oiv, Ministry 

o f Defense, New Oelho 

1 Pflrs Rsch Ole Librlfy, AKA, luael Defense Fot<."CS 

1 Ministl!l'is v11• Oefensle, OOOP/Kl Aid Socraal 

Psychologische Zaken, The Hague, Netherlands