Attention and Memory Play Different Roles in Syntactic Choice During Sentence Production
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11273690 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andriy Myachykov (0000-0002-1489-8582, Northumbria University, corresponding author), Simon Garrod (University of Glasgow), Christoph Scheepers (0000-0002-3127-8764, University of Glasgow) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 218-229 |
| Publication date | 2018-02-17 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Discourse Processes (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0163-853X • E-ISSN: 1532-6950 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/0163853x.2017.1330044 |
| OpenAlex | W2595277884 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 39 |
Attentional control of referential information is an important contributor to the structure of discourse. We investigated how attention and memory interplay during visually situated sentence production. We manipulated speakers’ attention to the agent or the patient of a described event by means of a referential or a dot visual cue. We also manipulated whether the cue was implicit or explicit by varying its duration (70 ms vs. 700 ms). Participants used passive voice more often when their attention was directed to the patient’s location, regardless of whether the cue duration. This effect was stronger when the cue was explicit rather than implicit, especially for passive-voice sentences. Analysis of sentence onset latencies showed a divergent pattern: Latencies were shorter (1) when the agent was cued, (2) when the cue was explicit, and (3) when the (explicit) cue was referential. (1) and (2) indicate facilitated sentence planning when the cue supports a canonical (active voice) sentence frame and when speakers had more time to plan their sentences, whereas (3) suggests that sentence planning was sensitive to whether the cue was informative with regard to the cued referent. We propose that differences between production likelihoods and production latencies indicate distinct contributions from attentional focus and memorial activation to sentence planning: Although the former partly predicts syntactic choice, the latter facilitates syntactic assembly (i.e., initiating overt sentence generation)
Cognition · Cognitive psychology · Cued speech · Focus (optics · Language production · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Referent · Sentence · Action Observation and Synchronization · Computer Science · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development
The interplay of prominence-lending factors and language production in children
The many facets of inhibitory control and their role in syntactic selection
Attention vs. accessibility
Structural priming
Effects of event participant preview and patient animacy in sentence production
The Alignment of Agent-First Preferences with Visual Event Representations
The Representation of Verbs
From conceptual roles to structural relations
Discourse Constraints on Syntactic Processing in Language Production
The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression
On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation
On the process of comparing sentences against pictures
Long-term working memory.
Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue
Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing
Salience Effects
Visual Salience Modulates Structure Choice in Relative Clause Production
Orienting of Attention
The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,2 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |