Abstract
Clark and Card (1969) have proposed that semantic components underlie memory for comparative (C) sentences. To test this hypothesis, six groups of 15 Ss each were given different sets of C sentences. In line with the theory, Ss tended to remember unmarked adjectives better than marked ones and positive constructions better than negatives. However, contrary to the theory, they also tended to bias their responding either toward the negative or the equative form. A two-stage theory of recall, based on the memory schema-memory trace distinction, is proposed to account for these data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bacharach. V. R.. & Kellas. G. Phrase versus base structure effects on short-term retention. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior. 1971. 10. 171–175.
Bartlett, F. C.Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1932.
Benjafield, J.. & Doan, B. Stmilarities between memory for visually perceived relations and comparative sentences. Psychonomic Science. 1971.24. 255–256.
Clark, H. H. Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 1969.76. 387–404.
Clark, H. H.. & Card. S. K. The role of semantics in remembering comparative sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 82,545–553.
Clark. H. H.. & Stafford, R. A. Memory for semantic features in the verb. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 80, 326–334.
Paul, I. H. The concept of schema in memory theory In R. R Holt (Ed.).Motires and thought. Psychoanalytic essays in honor of David Rapaport. New York: International Umversities Press. 1967.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by the National Research Council of Canada. The authors are grateful to Brian Doan for his help in the preparation of materials and the running of Ss.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benjafield, J., Giesbrecht, L. Context effects and the recall of comparative sentences. Memory & Cognition 1, 133–136 (1973). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198082
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198082