Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (4) (remove)
Document Type
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Lesen (4) (remove)
Institute
Berühren Denken
(2021)
›Theorie‹ geht etymologisch auf ›Anschauen‹ zurück. Der Theoretiker gilt gemeinhin als distanzierter Zuschauer. Diese distanzierte Position wird hier hinterfragt. Die Beiträge stützen sich dabei auf eine theoretische Tradition, die sich am Tastsinn als Korrektiv des Sehsinns orientiert. Taktilen Erfahrungsdimensionen wie dem Berühren wird schon lange eine idealisierte ›unmittelbare Wahrnehmung‹ jenseits von begrifflicher Abstraktion zugeschrieben. Die Autorinnen und Autoren beleuchten dagegen die komplizierte Verwandtschaft von Berühren und Denken und die begrifflichen Verwicklungen und Potenziale des Berührens. Es werden nicht nur unterschiedliche Konzepte von Berührung in Philosophie und Kunst betrachtet, sondern auch theoretische Denk- und Schreibformen erkundet, die selbst ›Berührungen‹ mit sich bringen.
Berühren Lesen
(2021)
Berühren changiert zwischen Buchstäblichkeit und Metaphorik. Gegenüber dem Distanzsinn des Sehens wird mit dem Berühren eine größere Unmittelbarkeit assoziiert. Doch die Möglichkeit des Kontaktes ist von Beginn an prekär. Das Berühren kann sich selbst nicht berühren. In das Berühren schiebt sich ein Dazwischen, das den Entzug dieser ambivalenten Figur bedingt. Diese aporetische Bestimmung des Berührens begründet das Unternehmen des Bandes. Jeder Eintrag wiederholt eine Bewegung des Berührens: In einzelnen Text- oder Bildlektüren werden Spuren verfolgt, die das Berühren im stetigen Sich-Entziehen in seinen mannigfaltigen Nachbarschaften hinterlässt. Die einzelnen Einträge generieren sich aus diesen Lektüren. Dabei spielt die Nachbarschaft der Einträge selbst eine tragende Rolle. So wird das Berühren zum produktiven Prinzip von Philologie als einer kollektiven
Lektüre- und Schreibform.
During sentence reading the eyes quickly jump from word to word to sample visual information with the high acuity of the fovea. Lexical properties of the currently fixated word are known to affect the duration of the fixation, reflecting an interaction of word processing with oculomotor planning. While low level properties of words in the parafovea can likewise affect the current fixation duration, results concerning the influence of lexical properties have been ambiguous (Drieghe, Rayner, & Pollatsek, 2008; Kliegl, Nuthmann, & Engbert, 2006). Experimental investigations of such lexical parafoveal-on-foveal effects using the boundary paradigm have instead shown, that lexical properties of parafoveal previews affect fixation durations on the upcoming target words (Risse & Kliegl, 2014). However, the results were potentially confounded with effects of preview validity.
The notion of parafoveal processing of lexical information challenges extant models of eye movements during reading. Models containing serial word processing assumptions have trouble explaining such effects, as they usually couple successful word processing to saccade planning, resulting in skipping of the parafoveal word. Although models with parallel word processing are less restricted, in the SWIFT model (Engbert, Longtin, & Kliegl, 2002) only processing of the foveal word can directly influence the saccade latency.
Here we combine the results of a boundary experiment (Chapter 2) with a predictive modeling approach using the SWIFT model, where we explore mechanisms of parafoveal inhibition in a simulation study (Chapter 4). We construct a likelihood function for the SWIFT model (Chapter 3) and utilize the experimental data in a Bayesian approach to parameter estimation (Chapter 3 & 4).
The experimental results show a substantial effect of parafoveal preview frequency on fixation durations on the target word, which can be clearly distinguished from the effect of preview validity. Using the eye movement data from the participants, we demonstrate the feasibility of the Bayesian approach even for a small set of estimated parameters, by comparing summary statistics of experimental and simulated data. Finally, we can show that the SWIFT model can account for the lexical preview effects, when a mechanism for parafoveal inhibition is added. The effects of preview validity were modeled best, when processing dependent saccade cancellation was added for invalid trials. In the simulation study only the control condition of the experiment was used for parameter estimation, allowing for cross validation. Simultaneously the number of free parameters was increased. High correlations of summary statistics demonstrate the capabilities of the parameter estimation approach. Taken together, the results advocate for a better integration of experimental data into computational modeling via parameter estimation.
The aim of the doctoral project was to answer the question of whether the structural word-initial noun capitalization, as it can otherwise only be found in Luxembourgish alongside German, has a function that is advantageous for the reader. The overriding hypothesis was that an advantage is achieved by activating a syntactic category, namely the core of a noun phrase, through the parafoveal perception of the capital letters. This perception from the corner of the eye should make it possible to preprocess the following noun. As a result, sentence processing should be facilitated, which should ultimately be reflected in overall faster reading times and fixation durations.
The structure of the project includes three studies, some of which included different participant groups:
Study 1:
Study design: Semantic priming using garden-path sentences should bring out the functionality of noun capitalization for the reader
Participant groups: German natives reading German
Study 2:
Study design: same design as study 1, but in English
Participant groups:
English natives without any knowledge of German reading English
English natives who regularly read German reading English
German with high proficiency in English reading English
Study 3:
Study design:
Influence of the noun frequency on a potential preprocessing using the boundary paradigm; Study languages: German and English
Participant groups:
German natives reading German
English natives without any knowledge of German reading English
German with high proficiency in English reading English
Brief summary: The noun capitalization clearly has an impact on sentence processing in both German and English. It cannot be confirmed that this has a substantial, decisive advantage.