1 / 25

Remembering what you saw is not the same as remembering what you heard.

Remembering what you saw is not the same as remembering what you heard. . Ray Becker Bielefeld University Monica Gonzalez-Marquez Cornell University & Bielefeld University Todd Ferretti Wilfrid Laurier University. Empirical Evidence for Evidentiality January 10, 2014.

hua
Download Presentation

Remembering what you saw is not the same as remembering what you heard.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Remembering what you saw is not the same as remembering what you heard. Ray Becker Bielefeld University Monica Gonzalez-Marquez Cornell University & Bielefeld University Todd Ferretti Wilfrid Laurier University • Empirical Evidence for Evidentiality • January 10, 2014

  2. Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (2015) Local organizer: Jan Edson Leite Linguistics Professor at UFPB João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil

  3. Embodied cognition Perceptual symbol systems (Barsalou, 1999) Simulation (Barsalou, 1999; Glenberg, 1997) She heard/saw the man speak at the school. Are there modality-specific differences?

  4. Cross-modal switching costs Pecher, Zeelenberg, and Barsalou, 2003 Property verification task leaves – rustling then bird – chirping leaves – rustling then raspberry – tart

  5. Modality specific differences? Pecher, Zeelenberg, and Barsalou, 2003 • No main effect (visual-property verification was not slower than auditory-property verification) What about at the discourse level? Would the brain’s response differ?

  6. N400 component Federmeier, K.D. and Kutas, M. (1999) A rose by any other name: long-term memory structure and sentence processing. J. Mem. Lang.41, 469–495

  7. P600 component Hagoort, P. & Brown, C. M. (1999). Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28,(6)715-728.

  8. P600 component Hagoort, P. & Brown, C. M. (1999). Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, (6) 715-728.

  9. Neuroscience data Burkhardt, P. (2006) Context A: BRIDGED DP “Tobias visited a concert in Berlin.” Context B: GIVEN DP “Tobias visited a conductor in Berlin.” Context C: NEW DP “Tobias talked to Nina.” Target sentence (following Context A–C) “He said that the conductor was very impressive.”

  10. Main ERP component of interest The Late Positivity component (P600/LPC) • Reflects integration difficulty • Decay of the referent in memory leads to the concept needing to be re-instantiated into the current situation model.

  11. Burkhardt’s findings More positively-leading (P600/LPC) for referents that followed Bridged and New contexts than Given contexts

  12. The current study Could modality-specific differences also effect brainwave patterns (N400 or P600) She saw the man speak at the school. (Complex) She heard the man speak at the school. (Less rich) If the simulation is complex then it should be more salient in the current situation model and be more available for later reference.

  13. Materials

  14. Procedure • 52 WLU undergraduate participants read short stories. • There were 20 experimental stories mixed in to another unrelated experiment. (124 stories total). • EEG was recorded from 64 electrodes. • Analysis was time locked to the onset of the target (e.g., man).

  15. Results Seen Target Heard Target Mean Amplitude (μV) -4 V 1 s 8 V Greater positive deflection (P600) for heard versus seen

  16. Discussion Descriptions of seen versus heard events has a quantitative effect on later reference. Simulating the visual descriptions of an event may lead to greater saliency for that event in the current situation model than auditory descriptions.

  17. Next steps How could interdisciplinary collaboration further our understanding of evidentiality? Are there qualitative differences in eyewitness testimony depending on the sensory description?

  18. Factive Verbs Compare sentences such as: I heard/saw the man speak at the school. I knew/guessed that the man…

  19. Eyewitness testimony Is this testimony more veridical than if the witness had heard the event?

  20. Eyewitness testimony Compare the number of Google hits for “I saw” versus “I felt”.

  21. Eyewitness testimony Now compare those numbers for “I saw” and “I felt” to “I heard”.

  22. Into the numbers “I saw…” “I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon.” – Flight 77 (9/11) “I saw many people being shot down as they were trying to run away.” – Nairobi mall “and up the hill I saw a man running toward the monument and I started running over there.” – JFK assassination

  23. Into the numbers “I heard…” “Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building.” – Flight 77 (9/11) “I heard a rain of hundreds of bullets in a span of less than a minute.” – Nairobi mall “Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm.” – JFK assassination

  24. Into the numbers “I felt…” “I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact.” – Flight 77 (9/11) “I felt I'm almost going to lose consciousness.” – Syria alleged chemical attack “My check was torn, I discovered as I felt it gingerly.” – Hiroshima (1945)

  25. Thank you Monica Gonzalez-Marquez Todd Ferretti Catherine Craven AlannahGuzak Jenna Harwood Rebecca McKerron

More Related