Moreover, experiencing conflict within a semantically ambiguous sentence did not ease the processing of a subsequent ambiguous sentence (Experiment 4-6). Specifically, there were no cross-task CSEs from the linguistic task to the Stroop task and vice versa (Experiment 1-3) – speaking against the assumption of domain-general control mechanisms. Although processing conflict was consistently experienced during sentence reading and in the Stroop task, we did not observe any within-task or cross-task adaptation effects. Experiments 4-6 investigated whether semantic conflict results in conflict adaptation in subsequent sentence processing. Experiments 1-3 investigated whether such semantic conflict produces the congruency sequence effect (CSE) within a subsequent manual Stroop task and whether Stroop conflict leads to adjustments in semantic processing. In the present study, we investigate how people adapt to conflict experienced during processing semantically ambiguous sentences. During language comprehension, humans often have to recover from conflicting interpretations as quickly and accurately as possible. Recent studies have suggested that the implementation of control following conflict detection might be domain-general in that conflict experienced in the language domain recruits control processes that deal with conflict experienced in non-linguistic domains (e.g., Kan et al., 2013). These findings reveal that only certain aspects of cognitive control influence garden path sentence comprehension.Ĭognitive conflict is regarded as a crucial factor in triggering subsequent adjustments in cognitive control (Botvinick et al., 2001). However, there were no differences between the high and low inhibition and shifting groups in ambiguity resolution. The results of independent t-test analyses revealed that the high working memory (WM) group was faster in ambiguity resolution, and so was the high monitoring group. Data analysis results showed a significant garden path effect on response times (RTs) and accuracy among all the participants. In the current study, the English (L2) Sentence Processing Task and a series of cognitive control tasks were administered among 111 young adult Chinese–English bilinguals to investigate the influence of different components of cognitive control on garden path sentence comprehension, with other factors such as age, socio-economic status, and language proficiency strictly matched. The results provide insight into how nonlinguistic functions contribute to parsing and interpretation and suggest that certain language skills are amenable to improvement via domain-general EF training.įew studies have examined the role of cognitive control in processing ambiguity, let alone the roles of different components of cognitive control. Untrained participants and n-back non-responders showed no performance changes. Their posttest eye-movement patterns also revealed significantly improved real-time revision following entry into disambiguating sentence regions where cognitive control is hypothesised to engage. ![]() N-back responders-those demonstrating reliable training gains-significantly increased their comprehension accuracy across assessments. Performance increases on a training task targeting conflict-resolution processes (n-back with “lures”) predicted improvements in garden-path recovery. Participants completed pre/post-reading assessments containing temporarily ambiguous sentences susceptible to misinterpretation. We tested if training on non-syntactic EF tasks improves readers' ability to recover from misanalysis during language processing. How do general-purpose cognitive abilities affect language processing and comprehension? Recent research emphasises a role for cognitive control-also called executive function (EF)-when individuals must override early parsing decisions as new evidence conflicts with their developing interpretation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |