scholarly journals Action-sentence compatibility effect produced by anticipation of subsequent following verb during online sentence processing

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-125
Author(s):  
Ai ISHIHATA
2002 ◽  
Vol 323 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel C.M. Bastiaansen ◽  
Jos J.A. van Berkum ◽  
Peter Hagoort

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Winter ◽  
Carolin Dudschig ◽  
Barbara Kaup

The embodied account of language comprehension has been one of the most influentialtheoretical developments in the recent decades addressing the question how humanscomprehend and represent language. To examine its assumptions, many studies havemade use of behavioral paradigms involving basic compatibility effects. Theaction–sentence compatibility effect (ACE) is one of the most influential of thesecompatibility effects and is the most widely cited evidence for the assumptions of theembodied account of language comprehension. However, recently there have beendifficulties to extend or even to reliably replicate the ACE. The conflicting findingsconcerning the ACE and its extensions lead to the discussion whether the ACE isindeed a reliable effect or whether it might be the product of publication bias or otherdistorting research practices. In a first step we conducted a meta-analysis using arandom-effects model. This analysis revealed a small but significant effect size of theACE (d = .129, p = .007). A second meta-analytic approach supports these findings ofthe existence of an ACE (Fisher’s method: χ2 = 124.379, p < .001). Furthermore, thetask-parameter Delay occurred as a factor of interest in whether the ACE appears withpositive or negative effect direction. This meta-analysis further assessed for potentialpublication bias and suggests that there is bias in the ACE literature.


2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McManus ◽  
Emma Marsden

This study investigated the effectiveness of providing L1 explicit information (EI) with practice for making more accurate and faster interpretations of L2 FrenchImparfait(IMP). Two treatments were investigated: (a) “L2-only,” providing EI about the L2 with L2 interpretation practice, and (b) “L2+L1,” providing the exact same L2-only treatment and including EI about the L1 (English) with practice interpreting L1 features that are equivalent to the IMP. Fifty L2 French learners were randomly assigned to either L2-only, L2+L1, or a control group. Online (self-paced reading) and offline (context-sentence matching) measures from pretest, posttest, and delayed posttests showed that providing additional L1 EI and practice improved not only offline L2 accuracy, but also the speed of online L2 processing. To our knowledge, this makes original and significant contributions about the nature of EI with practice and the role of the L1 (Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2014), and it extends a recent line of research examining EI effects in online sentence processing (Andringa & Curcic, 2015).


2021 ◽  
Vol 151 ◽  
pp. 107728
Author(s):  
Elena Barbieri ◽  
Kaitlyn A. Litcofsky ◽  
Matthew Walenski ◽  
Brianne Chiappetta ◽  
Marek-Marsel Mesulam ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
Pia Aravena ◽  
Esteban Hurtado ◽  
Rodrigo Riveros ◽  
Juan Felipe Cardona ◽  
Agustín Ibáñez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document