Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:43:58.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gestalt-like representations hijack Chunk-and-Pass processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Magda L. Dumitru
Magda L. Dumitru*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Christiansen & Chater (C&C) make two related and somewhat contradictory claims, namely that the ever abstract language representations built during Chunk-and-Pass processing allow for ever greater interference from extra-linguistic information, and that it is nevertheless the language system that re-codes incoming information into abstract representations. I analyse these claims and discuss evidence suggesting that Gestalt-like representations hijack Chunk-and-Pass processing.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e69
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altmann, G. T. M. (2002) Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of prior experience. Cognition 85:43–50.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (2009) Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation. Cognition 111:55–71.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59:617–45.Google Scholar
Dumitru, M. L. (2014) Moving stimuli guide retrieval and (in)validation of coordination simulations. Cognitive Processing 15(3):397–403.Google Scholar
Dumitru, M. L., Joergensen, G. H., Cruickshank, A. G. & Altmann, G. T. M. (2013) Language-guided visual processing affects reasoning: The role of referential and spatial anchoring. Consciousness and Cognition 22(2):562–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumitru, M. L. & Taylor, A. J. (2014) Or cues knowledge of alternatives: Evidence from priming. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 55(2):97–101.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Chase, W. G. & Faloon, S. (1980) Acquisition of a memory skill. Science 208:1181–82.Google Scholar
Gee, J. & Grosjean, F. (1983) Performance structures: A psycholinguistics and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15:411–58.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2007) A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research 1146:2–22.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M. & Haywood, S. L. (2003) The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49:133–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1966) The art of memory. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar