Episodic Memory Reports: Language-Based Evidence for Experientiality, Perspectivity, and Generativity

情景回忆的范例不同于语义信息的回忆，因为它具有特殊的现象学特性(如经验相似性、心理意象、透视性、自我意识)。哲学和语言学最近的工作表明，语言(这里：研究单位的语言，即。德语和英语)为这些属性提供了丰富的标记。其中包括特殊的副词，如“生动的”(代表心理意象)，代词如德语的“人”(代表第三人称视角)，以及语法结构如“回忆V-ing”(代表第一人称视角)。我们的项目使用这些情景回忆的语言标记来测试情景构建框架的具体假设(cheng，Werning，&Suddendorf，2016)。这适用于尤指。关于情景记忆痕迹的信息稀疏性[见P0‘S目标4]，提取过程中痕迹信息与语义信息的补充[目标2]，以及自我模型对情景建构的影响[目标3]。为了检验这些假设，我们将研究情节标记对给定记忆报告(即‘I Memory…’形式的句子)的适用性的影响。用于描述某个记忆事件(Obj1)。我们认为，为了捕捉其中一些标记的影响(对象2)，一个人必须采用集中涉及情景构建的生成账户(对象3)。为了更好地理解情节标记的影响(见对象1)，我们将进行一系列在线行为研究(WP1-3)。在这些研究中，参与者被要求从两个代理人中分别识别出谁更有可能说过某个“记住”句子(根据他们以前的经验)。从两个最能描述给定记忆事件的记忆报告中选择一个。这些研究是必要的，因为现有的关于情节标记的工作只集中在语料库和生产数据上，并没有提供关于这些标记对包含它们的记忆报告的真实性的影响的信息。为了解释这些标记的影响(见Obj2)，我们将具体说明每个标记的(成分的，有真值条件的)含义，并描述这种意义如何与动词‘记住’的含义相互作用，从而产生WP1-3(WP4)的真值条件。这个帐户将建立在我们先前关于单类型语义的工作的基础上。这项工作集中涉及信息丰富的前瞻性内容，并假设从信息最小的初始化情况构建场景。我们以前的工作使我们预计，其中一些标记的影响(例如，“人”的视角转换效应)只能通过假定关键特征的描述(特别是。情景构建框架(WP5)的稀疏痕迹、语义补充和检索偏向)。我们将使用我们关于情节标记的发现来帮助从研究单位的实验项目(对象4，WP6)中获得和解释免费的回忆数据。

Paradigmatic cases of episodic recall differ from recall of semantic information by having special phenomenological properties (e.g., experience-likeness, mental imagery, perspectivity, sense of self). Recent work in philosophy and linguistics suggests that languages (here: the languages of the research unit, viz. German and English) have a wealth of markers for these properties. These include special adverbs like ‘vividly’ (for mental imagery), pronouns like German ‘man’ (for 3rd person perspective), and grammatical structures like ‘remember V-ing’ (for 1st person perspective).Our project uses these linguistic markers for episodic recall to test specific assumptions of the scenario construction framework (Cheng, Werning, & Suddendorf, 2016). This holds esp. for the informational sparseness of episodic memory traces [see P0’s Aim 4], the supplementation of trace information with semantic information during retrieval [Aim 2], and the influence of the self-model on scenario construction [Aim 3]. To test these assumptions, we will study the effect that episodicity markers have on the suitability of a given memory report (i.e., sentences of the form ’I remember …’) for the description of a certain remembering event (Obj1). We argue that, to capture the effect of some of these markers (Obj2), one must adopt a generative account that centrally involves scenario construction (Obj3).To better understand the effect of episodicity markers (see Obj1), we will conduct a series of online behavioral studies (WP1-3). In these studies, participants are asked to identify one out of two agents who is more likely to have uttered a certain ‘remember’-sentence (given their previous experience) resp. to choose one of two memory reports that best describes a given remembering event. These studies are necessary since existing work on episodicity markers has focused only on corpus and production data, and has not provided information about the effect that these markers have on the truth of the memory reports containing them.To account for these markers' effect (see Obj2), we will specify the (compositional, truth-conditional) meaning of each marker and describe how this meaning interacts with the meaning of the verb 'remember' to yield the truth-conditions from WP1-3 (WP4). This account will build on our earlier work on single-type semantics. This work centrally involves informationally rich, perspectival content and assumes the construction of scenarios from an informationally minimal initializing situation. Our previous work leads us to expect that the effect of some of these markers (e.g., the perspective-shifting effect of ‘man’) can only be explained by accounts that assume key features (esp. sparse traces, semantic supplementation, and retrieval bias) of the scenario construction framework (WP5). We will use our findings about episodicity marking to help elicit and interpret free recall data from the experimental projects of the research unit (Obj4, WP6).