Laterality Factors in the Recall of Sentences Varying in Semantic Constraint

1970 ◽  
Vol 48 (1A) ◽  
pp. 84-85
Author(s):  
R. J. Jarvella ◽  
S. J. Herman ◽  
D. B. Pisoni
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Constraint

Nochmals zur Kataphora im Älteren Ägyptisch

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 237-242
Author(s):  
Carsten Peust
Keyword(s):  
Personal Pronoun ◽  
Semantic Constraint ◽  
The Subject

“Once more on Earlier Egyptian cataphora” -- This is a supplement to Uljas’ recent paper on cataphora in Earlier Egyptian. Opposing his suggestion of a semantic constraint in the use of cataphora, I argue that the principal constraint in Egyptian cataphora is a syntactic one: A personal pronoun may only receive a cataphoric interpretation if it refers to the subject of the clause.

Effects of semantic constraint and cloze probability on Chinese classifier-noun agreement

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 42-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Ju Chou ◽  
Hsu-Wen Huang ◽  
Chia-Lin Lee ◽  
Chia-Ying Lee
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Constraint

The Infinite Commitment of Finite Minds

1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Finite Axiomatization ◽  
Semantic Constraint ◽  
Theory Of Meaning ◽  
Finite Base ◽  
Finite Minds

Chomsky (in syntax) and Davidson (in semantics) have made much of the constraint that speakers’ competence must have a finite base. This base is often supposed to mean a finite axiomatization of beliefs. Section I shows why this is plausible. Section II shows why it is wrong. Section III shows why the semantic constraint is thereby trivialized.'Finite minds cannot have infinitely many beliefs’ has been taken for a useful truism. A theory of meaning, say, for a language may, for each of its infinitely many sentences, attribute to competent speakers knowledge, in some sense, and so in a corresponding sense belief, about the meaning (or some substitute for it) of that sentence. Our truism seems to force this paradox to immediate and constructive resolution: as finite minds we have a finite view on our language that recognizably entails an infinity of propositions about it.

scholarly journals The influence of sentence context and accented speech on lexical access in second-language auditory word recognition

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVELYNE LAGROU ◽  
ROBERT J. HARTSUIKER ◽  
WOUTER DUYCK
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Sentence Context ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Semantic Constraint ◽  
Accented Speech ◽  
Auditory Lexical Decision ◽  
Auditory Word ◽  
Auditory Word Recognition

Until now, research on bilingual auditory word recognition has been scarce, and although most studies agree that lexical access is language-nonselective, there is less consensus with respect to the influence of potentially constraining factors. The present study investigated the influence of three possible constraints. We tested whether language nonselectivity is restricted by (a) a sentence context in a second language (L2), (b) the semantic constraint of the sentence, and (c) the native language of the speaker. Dutch–English bilinguals completed an English auditory lexical decision task on the last word of low- and high-constraining sentences. Sentences were pronounced by a native Dutch speaker with English as the L2, or by a native English speaker with Dutch as the L2. Interlingual homophones (e.g., lief “sweet” – leaf /liːf/) were always recognized more slowly than control words. The semantic constraint of the sentence and the native accent of the speaker modulated, but did not eliminate interlingual homophone effects. These results are discussed within language-nonselective models of lexical access in bilingual auditory word recognition.

scholarly journals Directionality and context effects in word translation tasks performed by conference interpreters

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Chmiel
Keyword(s):  
International Institutions ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Context Effect ◽  
Context Effects ◽  
Mental Lexicon ◽  
Lexical Retrieval ◽  
Semantic Constraint ◽  
Word Translation

AbstractProfessional interpreters employed by international institutions usually work into their L1 from their L2, while freelance interpreters tend to work both into and from their L1. A study was devised to see if the long-term interpreting unidirectional practice (in the L2–L1 direction only), in contrast to bidirectional practice (in the L2–L1 and L1–L2 direction), influences the speed of lexical retrieval manifested through shorter translation latencies. Forty-eight professional conference interpreters produced oral translations of nouns presented in isolation, in high context constraint sentences and in low context constraint sentences. Contrary to predictions, unidirectional interpreters did not manifest directionality asymmetry and their L2–L1 translation latencies were not shorter than L1–L2 translation latencies. Surprisingly, the L2–L1 direction advantage was found in the group of bidirectional interpreters. The data suggest that the dominant directionality in interpreting practice has little impact on the strength of interlingual lexical links in the interpreter’s mental lexicon or that other factors (such as language use, exposure and immersion) might offset any such impact. The study also revealed an expected context effect, which shows that interpreters use semantic constraint to anticipate sentence-final words.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document