Glenburg, Arthur M.

Robertson, David A.

eScholarship - University of California

UC MercedProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science SocietyTitleForce Dynamics in Language and Cognition: An Empirical EvaluationPermalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/35p6d8h1JournalProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 20(0)AuthorsRobertson, David A.Glenburg, Arthur M.Publication Date1998 Peer reviewedeScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of CaliforniaForc e D y n a m i c s i n L a n g u a g e a n d Cogni t ion :  A n Empi r i ca l  Evaluat io n David A. Robertson (darobert@students.wisc.edu) Arthu r  M .  Glenber g (glenberg@facstarr.wisc.edu ) Departmen t  o f  Psychology ;  120 2 W .  Johnso n Stree t Madison ,  W I 5 3 7 0 6 U S A " W h y ? "  i s ofte n th e hardes t  questio n t o answer ,  bu t  a t  th e same tim e i t  i s  ofte n th e mos t  interestin g becaus e it s answe r reveal s causes .  Talm y (1988 )  propose s tha t  languag e ha s a forc e dynami c (FD )  syste m fo r  encodin g h o w w e thin k abou t causes .  A  strengt h o f  Tahny' s framewor k i s tha t  i t  explain s tha t  ou r  understandin g o f  comple x situation s b y wa y o f sinĉ le r  situations ,  an d i t  extend s th e analysi s t o cove r  socia l situations ,  approach/avoidanc e situations ,  etc .  Fo r  example , accordin g t o th e framework ,  ou r  understandin g o f  th e Persia n gul f  confli a (e.g .  Hussei n finally  agree d t o permi t  inspec -tion s t o avoi d th e sanctions. )  i s  base d o n th e sam e fwocesse s as ou r  understandin g o f  sentenc e (a )  i n Tabl e 1  below . In Talmy's framework, four basic syntactic structures ex-is t  t o conve y fou r  archetypa l  F D situations .  F D situation s includ e tw o entities ,  a n agonis t  an d a n antagonist .  Th e ago -nist' s  tendenc y i s eithe r  towar d res t  o r  action .  Th e antagonis t oppose s th e agonist .  Th e agonis t  eithe r  succeed s i n it s ten -denc y o r  fails ,  wit h som e resultan t  action .  Not e tha t  i n th e examples ,  th e agonist s an d antagonist s ar e inanimate ,  h i othe r  situation s on e o r  bot h migh t  b e animate .  Also ,  th e force s involve d m a y b e physica l  o r  socia l  forces .  Thi s flexi -bilit y  permit s categorizatio n o f  al l  type s o f  F D situations . Experiment 1 (Similarity Judgment): Participants (N=40 )  viewe d a  targe t  sentenc e alon g wit h a  se t  o f  thre e face-dynami c sentence s o n a  compute r  saeen .  Th e sentence s wer e constructe d t o includ e a  variet y o f  F D situations ,  in -cludin g conaei e physica l  settings ,  socia l  settings ,  an d ab -strac t  settings ,  an d wer e constructe d s o tha t  surfac e feanjre s alon e coul d no t  b e use d reliabl y t o distinguis h th e types . Participant s indicate d b y mous e clic k th e sentenc e mos t simila r  t o th e target .  Hal f  o f  th e time ,  a  sentenc e matchin g i n F D categor y (bu t  no t  i n topic )  wa s presented .  Th e othe r hal f  o f  th e trial s presente d on e o f  eac h o f  th e othe r  F D types . Sentenc e combination s wer e counter-balance d s o eac h sen -tence s an d compariso n set s wer e equall y likel y acros s par -ticipants .  Eac h participan t  mad e on e judgmen t  fo r  eac h sen -tence ,  fo r  a  tota l  o f  4 0 trials . Participant s mos t  frequentl y selecte d matchin g F D sen -tence s whe n a  matchin g typ e wa s presen t  i n th e compariso n set .  W h e n n o matc h wa s present ,  the y chos e situation s matchin g i n resultan t  actio n o r  win/los s equall y frequently . and bot h mor e tha n twic e a s ofte n a s choosin g a  matchin g toidenc y fo r  th e agonist . Exp 1: Similarity Judgments with match present matc h sam e tendenc y sam e resul t Exper imen t  2  (Differenc e J u d g m e n t ) :  Thi s experi -ment  followe d th e sam e desig n a s Experimen t  1 ,  bu t  partici -pant s wer e instructe d t o indicat e th e sentenc e tha t  wa s mos t differen t  fro m th e targe t W h en a  matchin g typ e wa s presented ,  participant s mos t frequently  selecte d sentenc e type s wit h differen t  win/los s an d resultan t  action ,  bu t  matchin g tendencies .  W h e n n o matc h was presented ,  participant s selecte d al l  type s equall y often . Expt 2: Difference Judgments with match present 0.5- 1 0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -matc b sam e tendenc y F D t y p e Discussio n same resul t The result s demonstrat e tha t  peopl e ca n mak e distinction s base d o n th e type s i n Talmy' s (1988 )  forc e dynami c frame-work .  Th e result s furthe r  sugges t  tha t  th e resultan t  action s i n th e situatio n bein g described ,  an d whethe r  th e agonis t  wa s successfu l  o r  no t  ar e mor e salien t  t o re^lo s tha n th e ago -nist' s  origina l  tendency .  I n conclusion ,  i t  appear s tha t  th e F D framwor k provide s a t  leas t  a  partia l  analysi s o f  wha t  i t means t o understan d " W h y ? " Reference Talmy ,  L .  (1988) .  Forc e dynamic s i n languag e an d cogni -tion .  Cognitiv e Science ,  12 ,  49-100 . Exp 1 :  Choices ,  n o matc b presen t 0. 5 0.4 -tendenc y win/los e resul t Share d aspec t Tabl e 1 : Example s o f  th e 4  Forc e Dynami c Type s rTalm v 1988 .  p .  55 ^  tendenc y win/los s resultant : a)  Th e bal l  kep t  rollin g becaus e o f  th e win d blowin g o n it .  res t  fail s  move s b)  Th e she d kep t  standin g despit e tb e gal e win d blowin g agains t  it .  res t  win s stati c c)  Th e bal l  kep t  rollin g despit e tb e stif f  grass .  actio n win s move s d)  Th e lo g kep t  lyin g o n tb e inclin e becaus e o f  tb e ridg e there .  actio n fail s stati c 125 9 

Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition: An Empirical Evaluation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eScholarship - University of California