S0041 · sachs_1967_memory_meaning · registry identity
Recognition Memory for Connected Discourse
External resolution
Resolution status: not_found
How Hirsch uses it
Every occurrence, grouped by book and chapter, with the claim it was linked to support and (where the extraction regenerated one) the underlying warrant.
1977 · The Philosophy of Composition
Sachs's research on recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse.
direct Human memory primarily stores prose information as meaning rather than as linguistic form.
Warrant (implicit): The ability to recognize semantic changes more accurately than syntactic changes in a text indicates that the mind prioritizes the propositional content of discourse over its grammatical structure.
could fail ifRecognition tasks may underestimate the role of syntax if the experimental design uses 'filler' sentences that do not require syntactic precision for meaning.
Subjects were unable to recognize if a sentence was active or passive after 12 seconds, despite excellent semantic recall.
direct Verbal memory for the linguistic features of a preceding clause begins to decay and becomes insecure after approximately twelve seconds.
Warrant (implicit): The specific duration of time after which syntactic recognition fails in a laboratory setting defines the functional window for achieving 'readability' in prose.
could fail ifExperimental 'decay' times often ignore 'interference' from subsequent sentences; in actual reading, the decay might be much faster or slower depending on the density of the following content.
1987 · Cultural Literacy
Sachs's demonstration showing that human memory quickly loses exact wording while retaining core meaning.
direct Humans possess poor memory for specific verbal phrasing but high memory for the underlying meaning of sentences.
Warrant (implicit): Consistent experimental results showing high semantic retention alongside low lexical retention indicate a structural design in human memory that favors meaning.
could fail ifThis preference may be a learned strategic behavior developed through schooling rather than an innate biological constraint of the memory system.
Experiment showing that subjects quickly lose the ability to distinguish between a target sentence ('He sent a letter about it to Galileo...') and a passive-voice variation, but can distinguish it from a sentence with a different meaning.
direct The original surface form of a sentence is rapidly lost to memory, whereas an accurate memory for its meaning is retained.
Warrant (explicit): When subjects lose the ability to detect grammatical changes but retain the ability to detect semantic changes, it proves that the mind prioritizes meaning over syntax for storage.
could fail ifThe failure to distinguish passive from active voice might be a result of the test's artificial delay rather than an inherent inability to store surface form.
Sachs's recognition probe study showing subjects forget the original sentence form but remember the meaning.
direct Surface forms of sentences are lost to memory within a few seconds.
Warrant (implicit): If recognition of a sentence's literal wording drops to chance levels shortly after exposure, then surface information is not transferred to long-term memory.
could fail ifInterference from subsequent sentences in a reading task may actively displace the surface form rather than it naturally decaying.
2022 · American Ethnicity
Sachs demonstrated that humans have poor memory for specific words but high memory for the general meaning of sentences.
direct Accurate memory of surface form normally disappears in a few seconds, while accurate memory for gist is quite persistent.
Warrant (implicit): A person's inability to recall specific wording while accurately recalling meaning reflects a general property of human cognition rather than a specific failure of attention.
could fail ifThe rapid loss of surface form might be a strategy used only when reading mundane narrative paragraphs, not when reading high-stakes or poetic texts where form is essential.
Jacqueline Sachs's 1967 study showing subjects could not distinguish between original sentences and those with changed syntax (passive/active) shortly after hearing them, but could distinguish meaning changes.
direct The original form of a sentence is rapidly lost to memory, whereas an accurate memory for its meaning is retained.
Warrant (implicit): When subjects cannot distinguish between different grammatical structures that convey the same meaning, it indicates that the mind has discarded the syntax in favor of a semantic representation.
could fail ifSubjects might retain the surface form but choose not to prioritize it in a testing environment that emphasizes meaning over verbatim recall.
Subjects shown a sentence about Galileo were unable to distinguish between the original and a passive-voice version shortly after hearing it, but could distinguish it from a sentence with changed meaning.
direct The original form of a sentence is rapidly lost to memory, whereas an accurate memory for its meaning is retained.
Warrant (implicit): Failure to identify a change from active to passive voice, while successfully identifying a change in the subject-object relationship, proves that syntactic detail is transient in memory.
could fail ifThe Galileo sentence is complex and may simply exceed the immediate attention span of the subjects, leading to a loss of detail that wouldn't occur with simpler sentences.
Endnote numbers seen
Raw book:chapter:endnote references collected during endnote backfill.
ae:7:74cl:2:4
Raw source_reference strings seen
As they appeared before normalization/consolidation into this source identity.
J. S. Sachs, 'Recognition Memory for Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Connected Discourse'J. S. Sachs, 'Recognition Memory for Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Connected Discourse' (1967)J. S. Sachs, 'Recognition Memory for Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Connected Discourse,' 1967Jacqueline Sachs (1967)SachsSachs (1967)