8.1041, Sum: Psycholinguistics

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-8-1041. Sat Jul 12 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 8.1041, Sum: Psycholinguistics

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
                   Ann Dizdar <ann at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editor:  Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <ann at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:08:37 EST
From:  "DAVID WHARTON" <whartond at FAGAN.UNCG.EDU>
Subject:  summary of responses to psycholinguistics query

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:08:37 EST
From:  "DAVID WHARTON" <whartond at FAGAN.UNCG.EDU>
Subject:  summary of responses to psycholinguistics query

In LINGUIST 8.981, I posted the following query:

>If an ambiguous word has a strongly dominant sense,
>is that sense most likely to be the one actually selected in neutral
>contexts? Of course the intuitive answer seems obivously to be "yes,"
>but I haven't found any formal studies affirming this, as most studies
>do not explicitly relate dominance bias or strength of activation with
>the processes of sense selection.

>Two more general questions: have the findings of Tabossi
>pretty much spelled an end to a purely modularist view of lexial
>processing?

>And finally, to what extent are connectionist explanations of lexical
>processing like Kawamoto's (see below) gaining credence among
>psycholinguists?

The sole respondent was James Fidelholtz, who, although he couldn't
directly address my questions, pointed out a very useful compilation
of sense-frequencies for common English words:

Michael West, _A general service list of English words_ (1953),
Longman.

Thanks,

Dave


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wharton
Department of Classical Studies
237 McIver Building
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC  27412-5001
email: whartond at uncg.edu   tel. (910)334-5214
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-1041