Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 6:1 (2019) ► pp.185–209

Language as a ‘game changer’ for spontaneous trait inference

| University of Lisbon
| University of Lisbon
| University of Lisbon
This paper provides a summary of the project regarding language and spontaneous trait inference (STI) interaction. For 40 years, different methodologies had been used to study STI. However, these methodologies used sentences to elicit the inference, but they were never controlled from a linguistic point of view. We studied STI behavior when sentences were modified by adverbs of manner and checked linguistic parameters to verify which had more importance when the inference occurred. Results show that not only these adverbs modify the strength for STI, but they sometimes also change which trait is preferably inferred by the participants, adding new traits which were not available if the adverbs were not inferred.
Keywords: linguistics, cognition, inference, personality, cognitive science
Article outline
  • 1.Theoretical background
    • 1.1A background on personality trait inference
    • 1.2A background in linguistics
    • 1.3Inference and language
      • 1.3.1Parsing theories
    • 1.4Adverbs of manner modification
  • 2.Corpus
    • 2.1Creating the traits
    • 2.2Sentence characterization
    • 2.3Preliminary study
      • 2.3.1Preliminary study’s results
    • 2.4Conditions
      • 2.4.1Hypotheses
    • 2.5Adverb creation
  • 3.Main task
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Lists of stimuli
    • 3.3Inference task
    • 3.4Semantic acceptability test
    • 3.5Sentence-by-sentence analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Inference task results
    • 4.2Sentence-by-sentence linguistic analysis
  • 5.General discussion
  • References
Published online: 12 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00035.mar
References (34)
References
Albrecht, J., & Myers, J. (1995). Role of context in accessing distant information during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21 (6), 1459–1468.Google Scholar
Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 411, 258–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlston, D., & Skowronski, J. (2005). Linking versus thinking: Evidence for the different associative and attributional bases of spontaneous trait transference and spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 891, 884–898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads:across-linguistic perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, J. (2004). A multifactorial approach to adverb placement: assumptions, facts and problems. Lingua, 1141, 711–753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). O advérbio em português europeu [Theadverb in European Portuguese]. Lisbon: Edições Colibri.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, A. (2014). Subject-relatedness in –ly premodifying adverbs. English Studies, 95 (4), 459–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dooling, D., & Christiaansen, R. (1977). Episodic and semantic aspects of memory for prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3 (4), 428–436.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. (1951). The organization of personality. Journal of Personality, 20 (1), 101–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, M., Morais, A., Ferreira, D., & Valchev, N. (2005). O João entornou o café, logo é desastrado; mas foi empurrado, logo não é desastrado. Frases implicativas de traços com continuações situacionais e neutras para o estudo das Inferências Espontâneas de Traços [John spilt the coffee, therefore he is clumsy; but he was pushed, therefore he is not clumsy. Trait implicative sentences with situational continuity and neutral for the study of Spontaneous Trait Inferences]. Laboratório de Psicologia, 31, 13–22.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (doctoral dissertation). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
(2015). Two interpretive systems for natural language? Journal Psycholinguist Research, 44 (1), 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1 (3), 183–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A., Steinhauer, K., & Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory & Cognition, 27 (3), 438–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ma, N., Vandekerckhove, M., Baetens, K., Van Overwalle, F., Seurinck, R., & Fias, W. (2012). Inconsistencies in spontaneous and intentional trait inferences. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 7 (8), 937–950. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcelo, D. (2016). Personality trait inferences upon manner adverb insertion. (master’s thesis). University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. (2004). Story stimuli for creating false beliefs about the world. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36 (4), 650–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, E., & Fazio, L. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34 (5), 1140–1149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Learning from fictional sources. In J. Nairne (Ed.), The foundations of remembering: Essays in honor of Henry L. Roediger (pp. 397–413). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, E., Meade, M., & Roediger, H. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 (4), 519–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minear, M., & Park, D. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4), 630–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prentice, D., Gerrig, R., & Bailis, D. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4 (3), 416–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramos, T., & Garcia-Marques, L. (2006). Quando uma acção permite diferentes interpretações: Pré-teste de comportamentos ambíguos [When an action allows different interpretations: Pre-test of ambiguous behaviors]. Laboratório de Psicologia, 4 (1), 45–63.Google Scholar
Raposo, E., Nascimento, M., Mota, M., Segura, L., & Mendes, A. (2013). Gramática do Português, Volume I & II [Portuguese Grammar]. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. (2002). Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors’ faces: Evidence from a false recognition paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5), 1051–1065. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors’ faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 (6), 549–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The person reference process in spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (4), 482–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uleman, J. (1999). Spontaneous versus intentional inferences in impression formation. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 141–160). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Uleman, J., Saribay, S., & Gonzalez, C. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 329–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uleman, J., Rim, S., Saribay, S., & Kressel, L. (2012). Controversies, questions, and prospects for spontaneous social inferences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6 (9), 657–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar