Modelling semantic transparency

We present models of semantic transparency in which the perceived trans- parency of English noun–noun compounds, and of their constituent words, is pre- dicted on the basis of the expectedness of their semantic structure. We show that such compounds are perceived as more transparent when the first noun is more frequent, hence more expected, in the language generally; when the compound semantic rela- tion is more frequent, hence more expected, in association with the first noun; and when the second noun is more productive, hence more expected, as the second ele- ment of a noun–noun compound. Taken together, our models of compound and con- stituent transparency lead us to two conclusions. Firstly, although compound trans- parency is a function of the transparencies of the constituents, the two constituents differ in the nature of their contribution. Secondly, since all the significant predictors in our models of compound transparency are also known predictors of processing speed, perceived transparency may itself be a reflex of ease of processing

Towards a resolution of some outstanding issues in transitive research: an empirical test on middle childhood

Transitive Inference (deduce B > D from B > C and C > D) can help us to understand other areas of sociocognitive development. Across three experiments, learning, memory, and the validity of two transitive paradigms were investigated. In Experiment 1 (N = 121), 7-year-olds completed a three-term nontraining task or a five-term task requiring extensive-training. Performance was superior on the three-term task. Experiment 2 presented 5–10-year-olds with a new five-term task, increasing learning opportunities without lengthening training (N = 71). Inferences improved, suggesting children can learn five-term series rapidly. Regarding memory, the minor (CD) premise was the best predictor of BD-inferential performance in both task-types. However, tasks exhibited different profiles according to associations between the major (BC) premise and BD inference, correlations between the premises, and the role of age. Experiment 3 (N = 227) helped rule out the possible objection that the above findings simply stemmed from three-term tasks with real objects being easier to solve than computer-tasks. It also confirmed that, unlike for five-term task (Experiments 1 & 2), inferences on three-term tasks improve with age, whether the age range is wide (Experiment 3) or narrow (Experiment 2). I conclude that the tasks indexed different routes within a dual-process conception of transitive reasoning: The five-term tasks indexes Type 1 (associative) processing, and the three-term task indexes Type 2 (analytic) processing. As well as demonstrating that both tasks are perfectly valid, these findings open up opportunities to use transitive tasks for educability, to investigate the role of transitivity in other domains of reasoning, and potentially to benefit the lived experiences of persons with developmental issues

Mechanisms underlying word learning in second language acquisition

One common assumption in the second language acquisition literature is that learning words in a second language (L2) is somehow distinct from acquiring new words in a native language (L1), particularly for beginning adult learners. Indeed, several models of the bilingual lexicon ascribe a special status or protection mechanism (often lexical mediation via the L1 translation equivalent) to new L2 words during early stages of acquisition (e.g., Grainger, Midgley, & Holcomb, 2010; Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Kroll, Van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010). In this chapter, we examine this assumption by comparing parasitic models, which posit such separate learning processes for L1 and L2 words, and non-parasitic models, which do not. To do so, we review empirical evidence related to word learning in beginning adult L2 learners, with a focus on the influence of the lexical and conceptual knowledge from their L1. Are there factors that differentially affect word learning in the L1 versus the L2 or at different levels of L2 proficiency? If so, how can identifying these factors inform our understanding of the underlying mechanisms? Answering these questions challenges the notion that a special mechanism is necessary for L2 word learning in adults and outlines a research agenda to gain further insight into these issues