Eva Poort (@EvaDPoort) and Jenni Rodd (@jennirodd) have published a database of of Dutch-English cognates and interlingual homographs in the Journal of Cognition
see here for the paper
Greg Maciejewski (now at the University of the West of Scotland) has published a paper entitled
Research has shown that adults are skilled at learning new words and meanings. We examined whether learning new meanings for familiar words affects the processing of their existing meanings. Adults learnt fictitious meanings for previously unambiguous words over four consecutive days. We tested comprehension of existing meanings using a semantic relatedness decision task in which the probe word was related to the existing but not the new meaning. Following the training, responses were slower to the trained, but not to the untrained, words, indicating competition between newly-acquired and well-established meanings. This effect was smaller for meanings that were semantically related to existing meanings than for the unrelated counterparts, demonstrating that meaning relatedness modulates the degree of competition. Overall, the findings confirm that new meanings can be integrated into the mental lexicon after just a few days’ exposure, and provide support for current models of ambiguity processing.
Rachael Hulme ( @Rach_Hulme ) will give a talk at this meeting entitled “Sleep protects against forgetting of new meanings for familiar words learned though stories.”.
See here for her abstract.
Chudi Gong will present a poster entitled “Comparing note-taking modalities for vocabulary learning: A cognitive offloading perspective”.
See here for her poster
Sentence structure and listening task affect the retuning of lexical-semantic representations, Gilbert, R.A., Davis, M.H., Gaskell, M.G., Rodd., J.M.
In this pre-preprint by Becky Gilbert (@beckyannegilbert) and co-authors reports a set of four web-based experiments that use a word-meaning priming method to investigate how/when listeners retune their representations of familiar, ambiguous words.
This results are consistent with a‘good enough’ view of sentence processing in which:
Dr Jenni Rodd has been awarded a grant for £573,000 from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to study individual differences in language comprehension across the lifespan. This research will be collaborative with:
This funding will support 2 postdoctoral resesarchers and and a graduate research assistant. Information about these vacancies will appear on this website in the coming weeks.
Poort, E.D., Rodd, J.M. (2019). Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: evidence from semantic relatedness tasks. PeerJ. 7:e6725 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6725
In this paper Eva reports two pre-registered online experiments looking at how bilingual participants respond to word forms that exist in both their languages: cognates and interlingual homographs. The results show a striking similiarity to the pattern of results seen in monolingual participants for words that are ambiguous within their single language. She proposes a theoretical approach to unifying these two areas of research.
Blott, L.M., Rodd, J.M., Ferreira, F., Warren J. (2019). Semantic ambiguity resolution during sentence comprehension is more efficient in individuals with greater lexical expertise. https://psyarxiv.com/3ejqy/
This pre-print reports an eye-tracking study (N=96) That Lena conducted while visiting Fernanda Ferreira’s lab in UCSD.
The results highlight the importance of reading experience and vocabulary knowledge for the efficiency of on-line reading processes in adult readers.
Jenni will present a talk entitled “How do we access the meanings of words?”
See here for the schedule of talks.
Jenni Rodd has written an article for the APS Observer Magazine. She emphasizes the importance of prepregistering exclusion cirterial when testing online:
“… you will inevitably collect some data that will be unusable — you simply cannot ensure that all participants will behave as instructed. It is therefore necessary to devise a set of experiment-specific criteria for excluding participants’ datasets from your analyses.”