Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 4 Psycholinguistic Experiments 4.1 Introduction After seeing the arguments in Chapter 2 for an analysis of the semantics of see which postulates many senses, connected with each other in complex ways, the reader might naturally have questions as to whether the proposed senses have any psychological basis. A psychologist might be tempted to say, \Such a complex lexical semantics is purely a theoretical construct, invented by linguists for linguists, in uenced by what is printed in dictionaries. It bears no relation to any mental representation of the word see that English speakers mighthave. Speakers' mental representations of the word probably have just one or two senses, with all the subtleties you have talked about arising from cognitive processing `on the y'". This chapter details a series of experiments 1 intended to respond to such objections and to seek answers to questions such as: Given examples of various uses of see, what sort of sense divisions will speakers make on their own, without any guidance? Given an a priori set of categories based on our linguistic analysis, how well will speakers agree with each other on which example falls in which category? How will their level of agreement be a ected by the number of categories they are 1 This is joint work with Jane A. Edwards, who has taken part in the design, running, and analysis of the experiments. My colleague Chris Johnson also participated in the initial establishment of the list of senses, and I have received innumerable suggestions from the members of my committee, other UCB graduate students and faculty, and audience members at presentations on this topic at the The Linguistic Society of America (Baker 1999) and the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Baker forthcoming). 132
CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 133 given? Will they make the same sorts of categorization decisions when forced to do so quickly? Will they make certain categorization decisions more quickly and accurately than others? If so, can such di erences in response time tell us anything about their own mental representations or processes? 2 On-line vs. O -line Methods Psycholinguistic experiments can be divided into those that ask the subjects to make high-level, conscious decisions about linguistic questions and those that ask subjects to make quick responses to relatively simple questions but measure reaction times, seeking clues as to the moment-to-moment processing of sentences; we can refer to these as \o -line" and \on-line" methods respectively. The term \on-line" is fairly standard in this eld; I am using \o -line" to refer to all experimental designs in which the speed of response is not a factor. 3 O -line methods allow us to construct experiments relatively easily that seem to answer some fundamental linguistic questions directly (\Is this sentence grammatical?", \Are these words synonyms?" \What is the antecedent of this pronoun?"), but the data they provide is often hard to interpret, because so much higher-level cognition may be involved in the decision; e.g. in a grammaticality judgement, the subject may actually have time to remember some rule that she was taught in the sixth grade, rather than relying on a purely intuitive judgement. On-line tasks have amuch betterchance of discovering something about the semantic representation used in actual sentence understanding, but the experiments are much harder to construct and a great many factors need to be carefully controlled to produce valid results. O -line experiments in which subjects estimate semantic relatedness of words may produce a great many numbers which in some sense re ect the subjects' semantic maps of the world. But the subjects have time to consider many dimensions on which words may be similar, even though the response is a single number for each trial. Also, judging semantic similarity on a scale is arguably an even more \unnatural" task than grammaticality judge- ments; most people have at least some experience in school of proofreading, either their own 2 Di erent mental representations are very di cult to distinguish from di erent processing strategies, cf. Section 4.5. 3 See Section 1.5 in Chapter 1 for a more general discussion of types of data and collection methods.
Page 1 and 2:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 3 and 4:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 5 and 6:
Next three psycholinguistic experim
Page 7 and 8:
BasicSenses........................
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements Careful citations
Page 11 and 12:
acquisition. Aside from needing to
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 Introduction Xue er bu s,
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 In lingui
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 5 Although
Page 19 and 20:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 7 part on t
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 9 is not cl
Page 23 and 24:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1980:10-
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 13 L.U. Lex
Page 27 and 28:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 15 spondenc
Page 29 and 30:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 17 happy an
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 19 shows th
Page 33 and 34:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 21 Regular
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 23 base for
Page 37 and 38:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 25 d. The i
Page 39 and 40:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 27 (12) a.
Page 41 and 42:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 29 linguist
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 31 Introspe
Page 45 and 46:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 33 on the o
Page 47 and 48:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 35 they con
Page 49 and 50:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 37 meaning
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 2 A Frame Semantic Analysis
Page 53 and 54:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94: CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 3 Other Cognitive Approache
Page 125 and 126: CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 139 and 140: Semantics of Seer entity setting ph
Page 143: CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 147 and 148: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 177 and 178: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 195 and 196:
CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 Bierwisch, Manfred
Page 253 and 254:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 ||, & B.T.S. Atkin
Page 255 and 256:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243 ||. 1990. The inva
Page 257 and 258:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 Osgood, C.E. 1970.
Page 259 and 260:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 Wasow, Thomas. 198
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix A Additional Corpus Exampl
Page 263 and 264:
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 265 and 266:
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 267 and 268:
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF MORPHOLOGY A
Page 269 and 270:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 257 Recogn
Page 271 and 272:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 259 to lea
Page 273 and 274:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 261 At the
Page 275 and 276:
Appendix D Stimuli for Experiments
Page 277 and 278:
APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Index activation, 13, 136, 137, 231
Page 289 and 290:
INDEX 277 description, 82 see proce
Page 291:
INDEX 279 173{178, 186, 190{192, 20
show all

Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?