Abstract
This study tested a model concerning the structure underlying the retention of complex sentences; in the model, the deep structure constituent propositions of the multi-proposition sentences are hierarchically related. Latencies and error rated to recognize these constituent propositions as true or false were measured and were the same for all propositions. These results did not confirm the model but showed that for recognition (but not necessarily for other memory tasks), each deep proposition of a sentence is separately or equally accessible. Stated differently, the recognition process does not make use of hierarchical organizations. The findings were obtained while the imagery-arousing capacity of the deep propositions was controlled. In previous research imagery was not controlled and it was found that some propositions and idea-units were better remembered than others; consequently, the suggestion was made that imagery might be related to accessibility, in that high-imagery items might be more accessible than low-imagery items. Closer analysis of other aspects of the findings indicated that another interesting factor might also be operating.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BEGG, I. 1972. Recall of meaningful phrases. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 431–439.
CHOMSKY, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.
CLARK, H., & CARD, S. 1964. Role of semantics in remembering comparative sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 545–553.
CLARK, H., & CLARK, E. V. 1968. Semantic distinctions and memory for complex sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 129–138.
HOROWITZ, L. M., & PRYTULAK, L. S. 1969. Redintegrative memory. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 519–531.
JAMES, C. 1972. Theme and imagery in the recall of active and passive sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 205–211.
JOHNSON, R. 1970. Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12–20.
KINTSCH, W., & KEENAN, J. 1973. Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257–274.
MEYER, B., & McCONKIE, G. 1973. What is recalled after hearing a passage? Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 109–117.
PAIVIO, A. 1971. Imagery and deep structure in the recall of English nominalizations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 1–12.
PAIVIO, A., YUILLE, J., & MADIGAN, S. 1968. Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, Monograph Supplement No. 1, Part 2.
PALERMO, D., & JENKINS, J. 1964. Word association norms: Grade school through college. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
PETERSON, M. 1971. Imagery and grammatical classification of cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 307–313.
ROHRMAN, N. 1970. More on the recall of nominalizations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 534–536.
TOWNSEND, D., & SALTZ, E. 1972. Phrases vs. meaning in the immediate recall of sentences. Psychonomic Science, 29, 381–384.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sasson, R.Y., LaRiviere, C. Recognition Memory for the Deep-Structure Propositions of Sentences. Psychol Rec 26, 541–552 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394422
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394422