Abstract
The present study was designed to identify and examine some of the variables that influence the focused search of semantic cases in question answering. Singer, Parbery, and Jakobson (1988) have previously reported that people can focus on the case interrogated by a question and can largely disregard irrelevant cases. In the present study, people learned facts, such asthe pilot painted the garage with the roller, the spraygun, and the brush. One day later, they answered questions that focused on a particular case. For example, the questiondid the pilot paint with a spraygun? focuses on the instrument case. Experiment 1 revealed that people can focus on a particular case in response both to complete questions and to comparable word probes, such as “pilot spraygun.” Therefore, the given-new structure of questions is not essential to focused search. Experiment 2 revealed that people have a difficult time ignoring the agent case, even when it is irrelevant to the question. This corroborates proposals that agent and action information are closely interrelated in the representation of a fact. These results help to delineate the phenomenon of the focused search of semantic cases.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional Information from long-term memory.Cognitive Psychology,4, 451–474.
Anderson, J. R. (1976).Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
Bowerman, M. (1973).Early syntactic development: A cross-linguistic study with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Braine, M. D. S., &Hardy, J. A. (1982). On what case categories there are, why they are, and how they develop: An amalgam ofa priori considerations, speculation, and evidence from children. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.),Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 217–239). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Braine, M. D. S., &Wells, R. S. (1978). Case-like categories in children: The actor and some related categories.Cognitive Psychology,10, 100–122.
Carlson, G. N., & Tannenhaus, M. K. (in press). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkin (Ed.),Thematic relations. New York: Academic Press.
Carpenter, P. A., &Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic model of verification.Psychological Review,82, 45–73.
Chafe, W. L. (1970).Meaning and the structure of language Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chaffin, R., &Herrmann, D. J. (1984). The similarity and diversity of semantic relations.Memory & Cognition,12, 134–141.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy. A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Clark, H. H., &Chase, W. G. (1972) On the process of comparing sentences and pictures.Cognitive Psychology,3, 472–517.
Clark, H. H., &Clark, E. V. (1977).Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Clark, H. H., &Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.),Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Cottrell, G. W., &Small, S. L. (1983). A connectionist scheme for modelling word sense disambiguationCognition & Brain Theory,6, 89–120.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach and R. Harms (Eds.),Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & WInston.
Halliday, M. A. K., &Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Haviland, S. E., &Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 512–521.
Healy, A. F., &Levitt, A. G. (1978). The relative accessibility of semantic and deep-structure syntactic concepts.Memory & Cognition,6, 518–526.
Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 530–538.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972).Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kieras, D. E. (1981). Topicalization effects in cued recall of technical prose.Memory & Cognition,9, 541–549.
Kintsch, W. (1974).The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W., &van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85, 363–394.
McCwskey, M., &Bigler, K. (1980). Focused memory search in fact retneval.Memory & Cognition,8, 253–264.
Reder, L. M. (1982). Plausibility judgments versus fact retrieval: Alternative strategies for sentence verification.Psychological Review,89, 250–280.
Reder, L. M., &Anderson, J. R. (1980). A partial resolution of the paradox of interference: The role of integrating knowledge.Cognitive Psychology,12, 447–472.
Schank, R. C. (1972). Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding.Cognitive Psychology,3, 552–631.
Segawwitz, N. S. (1982). The perception of semantic relations in pictures.Memory & Cognition,10, 381–388.
Shafto, M. (1973). The space for case.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 551–562.
Singer, M., Parbery, G., &Jakobson, L. S. (1988). Focused search of semantic cases in question answering.Memory & Cognition,16, 147–157.
Yekovich, F. R., Walker, C. H., &Blackman, H. S. (1979). The role of presupposed and focal information in integrating sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 535–548.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singer, M., Jakobson, L.S. Focaused search of semantic cases: The effects of question form and case status. Memory & Cognition 17, 265–273 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198464
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198464