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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 160 the sort of statistical analysis which was done on the timed tasks of Experiment 2. We can, however, calculate the simple agreement between the subjects' categorial judgements and the intended senses: after eliminating one subject who pressed the \yes" key on all of his responses, the median is 94% agreement (Q1 = 89%, Q3 = 97%), even with the larger number of senses. 4.5 Conclusions Experiment Senses Stimuli N Subjects Tasks 1 20 Corpus 9 1&2 2 7 Constructed 21 all 3 14 Constructed 39 all Table 4.10: Summary of the Experiments Table 4.10 shows a summary of the stimuli, tasks, and number of subjects in each of the experiments. We must recognize that not all the interesting questions about the polysemy ofsee can be resolved using experiments of this type. For example, nothing in this experimental setup will help to resolve the well-known problem of distinguishing retrieval of di erent xed representations from di erences in processing strategies, with which cognitive psychologists have been so concerned. There are also the ever-present dangers of generalizing from an unrepresentative sample; UC Berkeley undergraduates are certainly not a representative sample of English speakers in general. On the other hand, we have no a priori reason to suppose that their mental representations of the semantics of see are systematically di erent from those of other speakers, since it is such a common word, and most of its senses are very common as well. Also, as with most psychological research, there is no way to distinguish inter- subject di erences due to di erent mental representations (or processing) from those caused by subjects' di ering interpretations of (or attitudes toward) their duties in the experiment. (One exception is that data from subjects whose performance is obviously contrary to the instructions can legitimately be omitted from further analysis, as we have done in a few cases described below.) If, for example, some subjects tried to divide senses as they
CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 161 imagined a dictionary would have and others did not, but simply tried to construct their own categories in their own way, this might produce variation across subjects in the type of categorization. It seems unlikely that enough subjects carried out one such aninterpretation of the instructions consistently enough to substantially a ect our results. As noted earlier in this chapter, we expect to nd individual variation in internal- ized semantic structures for see across speakers; these patterns would be expected to follow the usual lines of geographical and social dialects, with educational level playing a major role, but we were not able to determine anything about such distribution in this study. To do so would require many more subjects from much more diverse backgrounds. Nor do these experiments provide any evidence as to the relative importance (or temporal precedence) of semantic vs. syntactic factors. As noted in Chapter 2, many senses have quite speci c restrictions (syntactic and/or semantic) on their arguments, such asaccompany or determine. The subjects may be learning to distinguish at least some of senses from relatively straightforward cues which are primarily syntactic (although the assumptions that syntactic cues (a) can be easily separated from semantic cues and (b) are more straightforward than semantic cues may becharacteristic of some linguists rather than most other speakers). Even given these caveats, there are still a number of signi cant conclusions to be drawn; let us review our predictions in the light of our results: 1. Since see is highly polysemous, we predicted that our subjects would produce more senses on the sorting task than the subjects in Jorgensen 1990. In Experiment 1, the mean number of categories per subject was 11.6, substantially higher than the mean of 5.6 found by Jorgensen (1990), as we had predicted. For Experiments 2 and 3, the median numbers of categories produced were 6 and 10, which approximate the number of senses intended by the experimenters, i.e. 7 and 14 respectively. The di erence between the two medians is signi cant, meaning that subjects recognized that more senses were present in Experiment 3 on the basis of the stimuli alone. 2. We predicted broad agreement among our subjects as to what the central sense(s) of see is. Most of the subjects chose as a central sense either a category corresponding to eye+faculty, oreye alone if they separated faculty from it.
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:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122: 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 145 and 146: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 171: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 177 and 178: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 223 and 224:
CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
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?