玫瑰不管叫什么名字都是玫瑰:这是对汉奇和Mädebach的重新诠释。

Language and cognitive processes Pub Date : 2013-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-08-28 DOI:10.1080/01690965.2012.682071
Eduardo Navarrete, Bradford Z Mahon
{"title":"玫瑰不管叫什么名字都是玫瑰:这是对汉奇和Mädebach的重新诠释。","authors":"Eduardo Navarrete,&nbsp;Bradford Z Mahon","doi":"10.1080/01690965.2012.682071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Response Exclusion Hypothesis localises the semantic interference effect as observed in the picture-word paradigm at a postlexical level of processing. An important aspect of this proposal is that the ease with which distractor words can be excluded from production at the response level is determined by the degree to which they satisfy criteria demanded of a correct response. This proposal predicts that naming a picture of a \"rose\" with the response \"flower\" will be slower with the distractor \"rose\" than a distractor word that would not be appropriate for the picture (e.g., \"tulip\"). Hantsch and Mädebach report evidence consistent with this expectation; however, the authors argue that the results are problematic for the Response Exclusion Hypothesis. Here we unpack Hantsch and Mädebach's arguments about why their finding is (putatively) problematic for the Response Exclusion Hypothesis. We conclude that the pattern of effects that the authors report are not only in line with what would be expected by the Response Exclusion Hypothesis, but are difficult to reconcile with Hantsch and Mädebach's preferred theoretical position.</p>","PeriodicalId":87410,"journal":{"name":"Language and cognitive processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01690965.2012.682071","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A rose by any other name is still a rose: A reinterpretation of Hantsch and Mädebach.\",\"authors\":\"Eduardo Navarrete,&nbsp;Bradford Z Mahon\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01690965.2012.682071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Response Exclusion Hypothesis localises the semantic interference effect as observed in the picture-word paradigm at a postlexical level of processing. An important aspect of this proposal is that the ease with which distractor words can be excluded from production at the response level is determined by the degree to which they satisfy criteria demanded of a correct response. This proposal predicts that naming a picture of a \\\"rose\\\" with the response \\\"flower\\\" will be slower with the distractor \\\"rose\\\" than a distractor word that would not be appropriate for the picture (e.g., \\\"tulip\\\"). Hantsch and Mädebach report evidence consistent with this expectation; however, the authors argue that the results are problematic for the Response Exclusion Hypothesis. Here we unpack Hantsch and Mädebach's arguments about why their finding is (putatively) problematic for the Response Exclusion Hypothesis. We conclude that the pattern of effects that the authors report are not only in line with what would be expected by the Response Exclusion Hypothesis, but are difficult to reconcile with Hantsch and Mädebach's preferred theoretical position.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language and cognitive processes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01690965.2012.682071\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language and cognitive processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.682071\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2012/8/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and cognitive processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.682071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

反应排斥假说将图词范式中的语义干扰效应定位于词汇后加工水平。该建议的一个重要方面是,在反应水平上排除干扰词的难易程度取决于它们满足正确反应所需标准的程度。这个提议预测,用“花”来命名一张“玫瑰”的图片,用“玫瑰”来命名的反应会比用一个不适合这张照片的分心词(比如“郁金香”)慢。Hantsch和Mädebach报告的证据与这一预期一致;然而,作者认为,结果是有问题的反应排斥假说。在这里,我们剖析了Hantsch和Mädebach关于为什么他们的发现(假定地)对反应排除假说有问题的论点。我们的结论是,作者报告的效应模式不仅符合反应排斥假说的预期,而且很难与Hantsch和Mädebach的首选理论立场相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A rose by any other name is still a rose: A reinterpretation of Hantsch and Mädebach.

The Response Exclusion Hypothesis localises the semantic interference effect as observed in the picture-word paradigm at a postlexical level of processing. An important aspect of this proposal is that the ease with which distractor words can be excluded from production at the response level is determined by the degree to which they satisfy criteria demanded of a correct response. This proposal predicts that naming a picture of a "rose" with the response "flower" will be slower with the distractor "rose" than a distractor word that would not be appropriate for the picture (e.g., "tulip"). Hantsch and Mädebach report evidence consistent with this expectation; however, the authors argue that the results are problematic for the Response Exclusion Hypothesis. Here we unpack Hantsch and Mädebach's arguments about why their finding is (putatively) problematic for the Response Exclusion Hypothesis. We conclude that the pattern of effects that the authors report are not only in line with what would be expected by the Response Exclusion Hypothesis, but are difficult to reconcile with Hantsch and Mädebach's preferred theoretical position.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信