Memory & Cognition

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 477–487 | Cite as

A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment

  • Stephen B. Barton
  • Anthony J. Sanford
Article

Abstract

Although the establishment of a coherent mental representation depends on semantic analysis, such analysis is not necessarily complete. This is illustrated by failures to notice the anomaly in questions such as, “When an airplane crashes, where should the survivors be buried?” Four experiments were carried out to extend knowledge of what determines the incidental detection of the critical item. Detection is a function of the goodness of global fit of the item (Experiments 1 and 2) and the extent to which the scenario predicts the item (Experiment 3). Global good fit appears to result in shallow processing of details. In Experiment 4, it is shown that if satisfactory coherence can be established without detailed semantic analysis, through the recruitment of suitable information from a sentence, then processing is indeed shallow. The studies also show that a text is not understood by first producing a local semantic representation and then incorporating this into a global model, and that semantic processing is not strictly incremental.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993).Incomplete processing of coherence relations with auditory presentations of text. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  3. Bredart, S., &Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effects on a semantic illusion.Acta Psychologica,67, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, P. A., &Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do when your mind is reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.),Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 275–307). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ehrlich, M.-F., & Loridant, C. (1990, September).Metacognitive control in the the resolution of anaphora in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders. Paper presented at the conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Como, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Erickson, T. A., &Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 540–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frazier, L., &Rayner, K. (1990) Taking on Semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Just, M. A.,Carpenter, P. A., &Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.Journal of Esperimental Prychology: General,111, 228–238.Google Scholar
  9. Kintsch, W.,&Vanduk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mcclelland, J. L., St. John, M., &Taraban, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach.Language & Cognitive Processes,4, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McKoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading.Psychological Review,99, 440–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitchell, D. C., &Green, D. W. (1978). The effects of context and content of immediate processing in reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,30, 609–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rayner, K., &Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reder, L. M. (1982). Plausibilityjudgements vs. fact retrieval: Alternative strategies for sentence verification.Psychological Review,89, 250–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reder, L. M. (1987). Strategy selection in question-answering.Cognitive Psychology,19, 90–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reder, L. M., &Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?Journal of Memory & Language,30, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sanford, A. J., Barton, S. B., Moxey, L. M., & Paterson, K. B. (in press). Cohesion processes, coherence, and anomaly detection. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.),Focus and cohesion in language comprehension. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Sanford, A. J., &Garrod, S. C. (1989). What, when and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphot-tc reference resolution.Language & Cognitive Processes,4, 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (in press). Selective processing in text understanding. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Schlesinger, I. M. (1968).Sentence structure and the readingprocess. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., &Rips, L. V. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decision.Psychological Review,81, 214–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Oostendorp, H., &De Mul, S. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion.Acta Psycholgica,74, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Oostendorp, H., & Den Uyl, M. J. (1984, June).Semantic relatedness effects in textprocessing. Paper presented to the joint meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society and the Netherlands Psychonomic Foundation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Van Oostendorp, H., &Kok, I. (1990). Failing to notice errors in sentences.Language & Cognitive Processes,5, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wason, P., &Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,31, 591–597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Winer, B. J. (1971).Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen B. Barton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anthony J. Sanford
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland
  2. 2.ESRC Human Communication Research CenterUniversities of Edinburgh and GlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations