Solving Syllogisms as Abstract Pattern Recognition and Completion, Based on Linguistic Cues for Logical Semantic Features

The presented empirical research is based on a new model for the categorical syllogisms, described and partially tested elsewhere. This model assumes that deriving a conclusion involves a pattern completion process, similar to the completion of perceptual patterns. Specifically, inferring a conclusion would require the generation of the missing part of an abstract pattern of logical semantic features. This pattern is named schema, because it is organized around a particular argumentative goal. Such a schema emerges through the frequent contact with a corresponding class of argumentative experiences. As, presumably, the usual pragmatic argumentative contexts imply predominantly valid syllogisms, pragmatic syllogistic schemas would emerge mainly for them. These pragmatic schemas for the valid syllogisms are supposed to be based on a particular mixed semantics of their syllogistic judgments, including both intensional (class-property) and extensional (subclass-class) relationships. The recognition of these schemas can be influenced by the linguistic cues of the verbal expression of the syllogisms. To test this particular prediction, the linguistic format of a set of 24 abstract categorical syllogisms (12 valid, 12 invalid) was varied. The linguistic cues of the L format task would favor the recognition of the logical features of the assumed syllogistic schemas with a mixed logical semantics of the valid syllogisms. The N format task, with no explicit linguistic cues for those logical features, would hinder the recognition of the above-mentioned schemas for the valid syllogisms. The administration order of the two tasks was also varied. The study included 192 university students. The data supported considerably the expected format effects on the correctness of the chosen answers for the valid syllogisms (with higher performances for the L format) in the relevant between-subjects and within-subjects comparisons, and some of the predicted order effects. Mental models theory cannot explain the obtained results.

Horizontal orthography versus vertical orthography: The effects of writing direction and syllabic format on visual word recognition in Korean Hangul

The Korean writing system has the flexibility of writing horizontally and vertically as well as two syllabic formats that cannot be found in any other alphabetic script. Consolidating these two characteristics, this study investigated the differential extractions of visual information from the mutilated stimuli of the two syllabic formats of CVC syllables and two writing directions using a lexical decision task. In Experiment 1, the two syllabic formats (i.e., balanced syllables, [Formula: see text] and vertical syllables, [Formula: see text]) were mutilated downwards and upwards (i.e., [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] respectively), along with whole stimuli, in horizontal writing direction. In Experiment 2, the same stimuli and syllabic formats were mutilated rightwards and leftwards (i.e., [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] respectively) in vertical writing direction. Linear mixed effects models showed significant syllabic format effects and writing direction effects, indicating an upper-part superiority in horizontal writing and a right-part advantage in vertical writing. In particular, the right-part superiority in vertical writing is different from a left-part advantage found in Chinese characters. While the upper-part superiority is script-universal, the leftward or rightward bias seems to be script-specific, as readers’ perceptual integration depends on the nature of orthography.