CRITERIA OF OPERATIVE MEMORY VOLUME AND THE COMPLEXITY OF UTTERANCE STRUCTURE IN THE LIGHT OF TEXT COMPREHENSION: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Abstract
The article studies general structural peculiarities of the utterance, which play the leading role in comprehension and decoding of text information and realize the perlocution effect most effectively. Different models and methods of assessing individual memory volume capacity are viewed as the key criterion to specify the degree of dependency of the cognitive process of perception and decoding of the graphic text on reflexive reality characteristics. The study features an attempt to reveal the opportunities for application of individual memory volume capacity in the process of defining the level of utterance comprehension in graphic text representation.
References
1. Бредихин С. Н. Константы интенциальности, субъективности и модальности в герменевтическом понимании смысла // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2015. №3(44). С. 54-58.
2. Бредихин С. Н., Серебрякова С. В. Субъектно-объектная асимметрия при распознавании речи // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2016. №4(49). С. 114-121.
3. Baddeley A. D., Hitch G. J. Working memory // The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1974. P. 47-90.
4. Brainerd C. J., Reyna V. F. Output-interference theory of dual-task deficits in memory development // Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1989. №47. P. 1-18.
5. Bresnan J. W., Kaplan R. M. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation // The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982. P. 173-281.
6. Daneman M., Tardif T. Working memory and reading skill re-examined // Attention and Perfonnance XII. (The Psychology of Reading) / ed. M. Coltheart. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum, 1987. P. 491-508.
7. Frazier L. The study of linguistic complexity // Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered / Eds. A. Davison & G. M. Green. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988. P. 23-53.
8. Kinchla R. A. Attention // Annual Reviews in Psychology. 1992. No.43. P. 711-742.
9. Konieczny L., Hemforth B., Strube G. Psychologisch fundierte Prinzipien der Satzverarbeitung jenseits von Minimal Attachment // Kognitionswissenschaft. 1991. №1. S. 58-70.
10. Miller G. A., Chomsky N. Finitary models of language users // Handbook of mathematical psychology / eds. R.D. Luce, R. Bush & E. Galanter, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley,1963. P. 419-491.
11. Mispelkamp H. Theoriengeleitete Sprachtestkonstruktion: Phil. Diss. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universität Düsseldorf, 1984.
12. Norman D. A., Shallice T. Attention to Action: Willed and automatic control of behavior // Consciousness and self-regulation. Advances in research and theory. Bd.4 / eds. R.J. Davidson, G.E. Schwartz, D. Shapiro. New York: Plenum Press, 1986. P. 1-18.
13. Rohrer C., Schwarze C. Eine Grammatiktheorie für die prozedurale Linguistik: Die Lexikalisch-Funktionale Grammatik (LFG) // Sprache im Mensch und Computer / Hrsg. H. Schnelle & G. Rickheit. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988. P. 9-62.
14. Salthouse T. A. The role of processing resources in cognitive aging // Cognitive development in adulthood: Progress in cognitive development research / Eds. M.L. Howe & C.J. Brainerd. New York: Springer, 1988. P. 185-239.
15. Schumann-Hengsteler R. Arbeitsgedächtnis und multiple BildvergIeiche: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den kognitiven Stil Impulsivität/Reflexivität // Zeitschrift für Entwicklungs- und Pädagogische Psychologie. 1990. No.22. S. 225-246.
16. Wason P. C. Response to afirmative and negative binary statements // British Journal of Psychology. 1961. No. 2. P. 133-142.
Review
For citations:
Bredikhin S.N. CRITERIA OF OPERATIVE MEMORY VOLUME AND THE COMPLEXITY OF UTTERANCE STRUCTURE IN THE LIGHT OF TEXT COMPREHENSION: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW. Humanities and law research. 2017;(1):183-186. (In Russ.)
Views:
118
Email this article 