Comprender lo desconocido. Expectativas, relaciones semánticas y causalidad por defecto revisitada attentes, relations sémantiques et causalité par défaut revisitées
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
La comprensión de oraciones y textos involucra fenómenos complejos en los que interviene tanto información específicamente lingüística como información extralingüística. Analizamos aquí cómo incide la ausencia de conocimiento previo sobre el mundo durante la comprensión de oraciones y, específicamente, si este factor modula el proceso en función del tipo de relación semántica: aditiva, temporal y causal. A partir de una tarea de comprensión de oraciones bajo un paradigma de lectura a ritmo propio, revisamos la Hipótesis de causalidad por defecto. Se registraron los tiempos de lectura y la precisión de respuesta a preguntas de comprensión. Los resultados muestran un efecto principal generado por la imposibilidad de involucrar conocimientos previos sobre el mundo e interacciones vinculadas con el tipo de relación semántica. Se exhibe una centralidad del eje temporo-causal también para la comprensión de información desconocida, aunque no todas las predicciones hechas por la Hipótesis de causalidad por defecto se sostienen para estos casos.
Abel, R. y Hänze, M. (2019). Generating causal relations in scientific texts: The long-term advantage of successful generation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00199
Asr, F. y Demberg, V. (2012). Implicitness of Discourse Relations. En M. Kay y C. Boitet (Eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2012 (pp. 2669-2684). The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee. https://aclanthology.org/C12-1163
Baayen, R. y Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807
Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. y Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Barton, K. (2020). MuMIn: multi-model inference- R package (Versión 1.43.7) [Paquete].
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. y Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Briner, S., Virtue, S. y Kurby, C. (2012). Processing causality in narrative events: Temporal order matters. Discourse Processes, 49(1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.607952
Caron, J., Micko, H. y Thüring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90057-5
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger.
Christianson, K., Williams, C., Zacks, R. y Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 205-238. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
Clark, E. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 10(3), 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80054-3
Couper-Kuhlen, E. y Kortmann, B. (Eds.). (2000). Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discoursive Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043
Cousineau, D. y Chartier, S. (2010). Outliers detection and treatment: A review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.844
Cozjin, R., Noordman, L. y Vonk, W. (2011). Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 475-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421
Davidson, D. (1985). Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford University Press.
De Long, K., Urbach, T. y Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature neuroscience, 8(8), 1117-1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504
De Ruiter, L., Theakston, A., Brandt, S. y Lieven, E. (2018). Iconicity affects children´s comprehension of complex sentences: The role of semantics, clause order, input and individual differences. Cognition, 171, 202-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.015
Degand, L., Lefèvre, N. y Bestgen, Y. (1999). The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design, 1(1), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg
Dery, J. y Koenig, J.P. (2015). A Narrative-Expectation-Based Approach to temporal Update in Discourse Comprehension. Discourse Comprehension, 52(7), 559-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.966293
Ferreira, F. y Lowder, M. (2016). Prediction, Information Structure, and Good-Enough. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, (65), 217-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.04.002
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. y Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158
Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
Frank, S. L., Koppen, M., Noordman, L. G. M., y Vonk, W. (2007). Modeling multiple levels of text representation. En F. Schmalhofer y C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 133–157). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Gennari, S. (2004). Temporal References and Temporal Relations in Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psyhology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30(4), 877-890. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.877
Goldman, S., Graesser, A. y van den Broek, P. (1999). Narrative Comprehension, Causality, and Coherence. Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603135
Graesser, A. (1981): Prose Comprehension Beyond the Word. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5880-3
Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader Expectations in Text Comprehension. Advances in Psychology, 9, 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60055-8
Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(6), 883-899. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903322370807
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastlaansen, M. y Perterson, K. (2004). Integration of Word Meaning and World Knowledge in Language Comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438-441. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095455
Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J. y Sander, T. (2017). Congnitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 113-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain research 1626, 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014
Humphries, C. Binder, J., Medler, D. y Liebenthal, E. (2006). Syntactic and Semantic Modulation of Neural Activity during Auditory Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(4), 665-679. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.665
Jackendoff, R. (2010). Fundamentos del lenguaje. Mente, significado, gramática y evolución. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Karimi, H. y Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 69(5), 1013-1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
Kendeou, P. y Van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491
Kim, J. (2007). Causation and Mental Causation. En B. McLaughlin y J. Cohen (Eds.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of mind (pp. 227-243). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199585878.003.0013
Kintsch, W. (1988). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Koornneef, A. y Sanders, T. (2012). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: the influence on implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and cognitive processes, 28(8), 1169-1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
Kuperberg, G. R. y Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, cognition and neuroscience, 31(1), 32-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff P. B. y Christensen, R. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
León, J. y Peñalba, G. (2002). Understanding Causality and Temporal Sequence in Scientific Discourse. En J. Otero, J. León y A. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 155-178). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Linderholm, T., Everson, M., Van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Gittenden, A. y Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of Causal Text Revisions on More-and-Less-Skilled Readers´ Comprehension of Easy and Difficult Texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 525-556. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_4
Lupyan, G. y Clark, A. (2015). Words and the World. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 279-284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415570732
MacDonald, M. C., Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint Satisfaction Accounts of Lexical and Sentence comprehension. En M.J. Traxler, M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 581-611). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50016-X
Mak, W. y Sanders, T. (2013). The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.708423
McNamara, D. y Kintsch, E., Songer, N. y Kintsch, W. (1996). Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
Metusalem, R., Kutas, M., Urbach, T., Hare, M., McRae, K. y Elman J. (2012). Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 545-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.001
Meyer, P. G. (2009). The relevance of causality. En E. Couper-Kuhlen y B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast. Cognitive and Discoursive Perspectives (pp. 9-34). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043-002
Millis, K. y Just, M. (1994). The Influence of Connectives on Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128-147. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
Murray, J. D. (1994). Logical connectives and local coherence. En R. F. Lorch y E. L. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of cohesion in text comprehension (pp. 107-125). Erlbaum.
Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114
Noordman, L. y Blijzer, F. (2000). On the processing of causal relations. En E. Couper-Kuhlen, y B. Kotmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast. Cognitive and Discoursive Pespectives (pp. 35-56). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.1.35
Noordman, L. y Vonk, C. (1998). Memory-based processing in understanding casual information. Discourse Processes, 26(2-3), 191-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545044
Noordman, L., Vonk, W., Cozjin, R. y Frank, S. (2015). Causal inferences and World Knowledge. En J. O´Brien, Eduard, A.E. Cook y R.F. Lorch (Eds.). Inferences during reading (pp. 260-289). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279186.013
O´Reilly, T.; McNamara, D. (2007). Reversing the Reverse Cohesion Effect: Good Texts Can Be Better for Strategic, High-Knowledge Readers. Discours Processes, 43(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895
Oudega, N. (2011). How default is causality by default? [Tesis doctoral, Utrecht University]. UU Theses Repository. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/9080
Ozuru, Y. Dempsey, K. y McNamara, D. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of sciences texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
Pylkkänen, L. y McElree, B. (2007). An MEG Study of Silent Meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1905-1921. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1905
Pylkkänen, L., Brenna, J. y & Bemis, D. (2011). Grounding the cognitive neuroscience of semantics in linguistic theories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1317-1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.527490
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (versión 4.1.1) [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Raiter, A. (2003). Lenguaje y sentido común. Las bases para la formación del discurso dominante. Biblos.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for Dealing with Reaction Time Outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510
Sanders, T. (2005, 14-15 de noviembre). Coherence, Causality and Cognitive Complexity in Discourse [Conference presentation]. First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modeling of Meaning, Biarritz, Francia.
Schad, D., Shravan V., Hohenstein, S. y Kliegl, R. (2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038
Sikos, L., Duffield, Kim, C.J. y Albert, E. (2016). Grammatical predictions reveal influences of semantic attraction in online sentence comprehension: evidence from speeded forced-choice sentence continuations. Language, cognition and neuroscience, 31(8), 1055-1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1186808
Sloman, S. (2005). Casual Models. How People Think about the World and its Alternatives. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183115.001.0001
Sperber, D., Premack, D. y Premack, A. (Eds.). (1996). Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.001.0001
Stetie, N.A. (2021). Modelos de procesamiento sintáctico y sus implicaciones para el estudio del lenguaje. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 29(3), 2117-2162. https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.29.3.2117-1262
Townsend, D. y Bever, T. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. MIT. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6184.001.0001
Traxler, M., Bybee, M. y Pickering, M. (1997). Influence of Connectives on Language Comprehension: Eye-tracking Evidence for Incremental Interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249897391982
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. y Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of memory and language, 33(3), 285-318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
Van Berkum, J. (2008). Understanding sentences in context: What brain waves can tell us. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 17(6), 376-380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00609.x
Van Berkum, J., Brown, C., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V. y Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31(3), 443-467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
Van der Meer, E., Beyer, R. Heinze, B. y Badel, I. (2002). Temporal order relations in Language Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psyhology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 770-779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.770
Van der Meer, E., Krüger, F. y Nuthmann, A, (2005). The Influence of Temporal Order Information in General Event Knowledge in Language Comprenhension. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 213(3), 142-151. https://doi.org/10.1026/0044-3409.213.3.142
Van Dijk, T. (1992). La ciencia del texto. Un enfoque interdisciplinario. Paidós.
Van Dijk, T. y Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press.
Vasishth, S., Daniel S., Bürki, A. y Kliegl. R. (2021). Linear Mixed Models in Linguistics and Psychology: A Comprehensive Introduction. https://vasishth.github.io/Freq_CogSci/
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M. y Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: an event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 16(7), 1272-1288. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920487
Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165547
Zehr, J. y Schwarz, F. (2018). PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX) (Versión 1.0) [Software]. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832
Zunino, G. M. (2014). Procesamiento psicolingüístico de relaciones semánticas: causalidad y contracausalidad [Tesis doctoral inédita]. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Zunino, G. M. (2017). Procesamiento de causalidad y contracausalidad: interacciones entre estructura sintáctica y conocimiento del mundo en la comprensión de relaciones semánticas. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 50(95), 472-491. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342017000300472
Zunino, G. M. (2019a). Procesamiento de discurso: relaciones semánticas, expectativas del lector y modelos mentales. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, (69), 9-35. https://doi.org/10.22201/enallt.01852647p.2019.69.828
Zunino, G. M. (2019b). Procesamiento de lenguaje: ¿de qué hablamos cuando hablamos de predicción? Quintú Quimün. Revista de Lingüística, (3), 1-38. https://revele.uncoma.edu.ar/index.php/lingustica/article/view/2458
Zunino, G. M. (2020). Reading Skills and Prior Knowledge in the Comprehension of Causal Relations: Multiple Interactions between Formal Schooling, Type of Information and Cohesion Markers. PROLINGUA, 15(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1983-9979.2020v15n2.54942
Zunino, G. M., Abusamra, V. y Raiter, A. (2012). Causalidad: relación entre conocimiento de mundo y conocimiento lingüístico. Pragmalingüística, (20), 200-219.
Zunino, G. M., Abusamra, V. y Raiter, A. (2016). Causality, Iconicity and Continuity: The Effects of Prior Knowledge on the Understanding of Causal Relations. Alfa: Revista de Lingüística, 60(2), 261-285. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1608-2
Zwaan, R. y Radwansky, G. (1998). Situation Models in Language Comprehension and Memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
Aceptado 2022-10-11
Publicado 2023-01-30
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.