This article points out that an adequate cognition-oriented approach to the processing of symbolic information abstracted from verbal expressions must consider running text instead of scattered sentences. It is argued that the dominant cognition models do not give due consideration to the fact that a valid abstraction of information structures has to be based on an explicit encoding of intentionality and valuation. A model must cope with empirical context and novelty instead of truth-values in semantic-logical contexts. The proposed theory has been tested empirically on text material considered to be anamorphic. Its underlying key relations can be extracted by means of discriminant functions and given a meaningful interpretation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BierschenkB.Perception, strukturering och precisering av pedagogiska och psykologiska forskningsproblem på pedagogiska institutioner i Sverige. [The perception, structuring and definition of educational and psychological research problems at the departments of education in Sweden.]Pedagogisk-psykologiska problem, 1974, No. 254. (In Swedish)
2.
BierschenkB.A computer-based content analysis of interview texts: Numeric description and multivariate analysis. Didakometry, 1977, No. 53. (a)
3.
BierschenkB.Research planning from a microecological perspective: Summary of interview study. Educational and Psychological Interactions, 1977, No. 60. (b)
4.
BierschenkB.En longitudinel analys av kunskapsutvecklingen inom utbildningsforskningen. [A longitudinal analysis of knowledge development within educational research.]Pedagogisk-psykologiska problem, 1979, No. 355. (In Swedish)
5.
BierschenkB.Conceptions of cognitive functions in a science of knowing. Didakometry, 1981, No. 63.
6.
BierschenkB., & BierschenkI.A computer-based content analysis of interview data. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. (Studia Psychologies et Peadagogica, No. 32)
JenkinsJ. J.Remember that old theory of memory? Well, forget it! In ShawR. & BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977. Pp. 413–429.
11.
KintschW.The representation of meaning in memory. New York: Wiley, 1974.
12.
NieN. H.HullC. H.JenkinsJ. G.SteinbrennerK., & BentD. H.Statistical package for the social sciences. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
13.
OsgoodC. E.On the whys and wherefores of E, P, and A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 194–199.
14.
QuillianM. R.Semantic memory. In MinskyM. L. (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1968. Pp. 216–270.
15.
SchankR. C.Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3, 552–631.
SchubertL. K.GoebelG. R., & CerconeN. J.The structure and organization of a semantic net for comprehension and inference. In FindlerN. V. (Ed.), Associative networks. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Pp. 721–775.
18.
TatsuokaM. M.Multivariate analysis: Techniques for educational and psychological research. New York: Wiley, 1971.
19.
WernerM., & KaplanB.Symbol formation: An organismic developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. New York: Wiley, 1963.
20.
WilksY.An artificial intelligence approach to machine translation. In SchankR. C. & ColbyK. M. (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language. San Francisco: Freeman, 1973. Pp. 114–151.
21.
WinogradT.Understanding natural language. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
22.
WinstonP. H. (Ed.) The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
23.
WoodsW. A.An experimental parsing system for transition network grammars. In RustinR. (Ed.), Natural language understanding. New York: Algorithmic Press, 1973. Pp. 111–154.
24.
WundtW.Grundriss der Psychologie. Vol. 13. Leipzig: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1918.
