From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Apr 19 23:43:57 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3K3hvkQ025115 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:43:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3K3ht5F049022 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 10755 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2007 03:43:55 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 20 Apr 2007 03:43:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 10193 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2007 03:43:51 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 20 Apr 2007 03:43:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 9944 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2007 03:43:40 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 20 Apr 2007 03:43:40 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4872567 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:43:39 -0400 Delivered-To: cse727-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 14257 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2007 03:43:39 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 20 Apr 2007 03:43:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 26471 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Apr 2007 03:43:39 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 66.67.170.95 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1177040619.462836eb0282d@mail1.buffalo.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:43:39 -0400 Reply-To: jcwhite2@BUFFALO.EDU Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: John C White Subject: CSE727: Response to nagyanderson84 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3135/Thu Apr 19 17:08:24 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1261 They definitely seem committed to the idea that the analytical approach is better than the holistic one. I guess it is only natural that a lot of the various approaches to CVA up to this point have utilized semantic networks that contain word features for a specific definition. I am a bit curious as to why people use such an inflexible method as the holistic approach though. Maybe its just observer bias, but in going through the responses of the holistic protocols, it does not seem clear why they throw out whole words or attempts entirely rather than break them up for a new definition. It is almost as if they are resistant to expanding their vocabulary in that they attempt to fit what they already know to the unknown rather than admit to themselves that no such definition exists to them. I also wonder why the experimenters decided to grade higher for more drastic transformations of possible word meanings. Although it is true that some words may require some significant decontextualization, there may be others that do not and by reorganizing the aspects of the word in such a drastic way it may gain some unintended meaning in the process. Perhaps they take that into account with the rest of their scoring system though? -John White From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Apr 21 14:08:56 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3LI8uZP009497 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3LI8sd9078017 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:08:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 13853 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:08:54 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:08:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 27729 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:08:54 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:08:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 10807 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:08:46 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:08:46 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4900332 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:08:46 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 20893 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 17:58:46 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 17:58:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 8848 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 17:58:46 -0000 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (64.233.166.180) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 17:58:46 -0000 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f31so1002485pyh for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.152.17 with SMTP id e17mr265880qbo.1177178325876; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.149.3 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1177040619.462836eb0282d@mail1.buffalo.edu> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 75aea02bb4b00909 X-UB-Relay: (py-out-1112.google.com) X-PM-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <4e4445330704211058x7693d53chdeb71f4b95d9aa8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:58:45 -0400 Reply-To: "Paul M. Heider" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "Paul M. Heider" Subject: Re: CSE727: Response to nagyanderson84 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: <1177040619.462836eb0282d@mail1.buffalo.edu> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (py-out-1112.google.com) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3144/Sat Apr 21 08:20:45 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 836 > I am a bit curious as to why people use such an inflexible method as > the holistic approach though. I've been trying to think of other cognitive abilities that benefit more for the holitic approach. In language studies, it seems like secondary language education could actually be perceived as easier if you use the holistic approach. In this study, the experimenters explicitly tell the students these are not synonyms of words you know. But if you grow up speaking Dutch and learn English as a second language, I could imagine trying to match your Dutch vocabulary with English words is highly profitable. There are a great many cognates. You probably wouldn't understand the finer differences until much later in your studies, at which point you would essentially be refining words that you are already quite familiar with. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Apr 21 14:09:12 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3LI9CXR009537 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3LI99t5078049 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 29592 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:09:09 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:09:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 16726 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:09:09 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:09:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 10971 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:09:00 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:09:00 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4900336 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:09:00 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 20981 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 17:59:00 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 17:59:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 8886 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 17:58:59 -0000 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (64.233.166.180) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 17:58:59 -0000 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f31so1002485pyh for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.153.10 with SMTP id f10mr8505652qbo.1177178338480; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.149.3 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:58:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: e81c8417df493bec X-UB-Relay: (py-out-1112.google.com) X-PM-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <4e4445330704211058h3a606f40l9f98873e7d2e7fbb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:58:58 -0400 Reply-To: "Paul M. Heider" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "Paul M. Heider" Subject: CSE727: van Daalen-Kapteijns and Elshout-Mohr 1981 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (py-out-1112.google.com) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3144/Sat Apr 21 08:20:45 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1346 In discussing the transformations on page 388, D-K and E-M provide an interesting example about plenty of light meaning a room has no kolpers. The final transformed idea is "kolpers transmit little light." I imagine CASSIE could have difficulty inherently dealing with this type of transformation because humans produce many transformations that are not logically sound. I guess, in the ideal world, we would program CASSIE with a Rigorous? variable. When Rigorous? is true, CASSIE only uses sound logic. When false, CASSIE uses more human-like logic (with all the necessary fallacies). Experiment 1 made me curious how students would handle an unknown superordinate term. They call "window" a superordinate but it is really a basic-level term. If we assume people learn basic level terms first, then most of the vocabulary building is focused in increasing super- and sub-ordinate knowledge. "Kolper" is a good example of learning subordinate terms. Would the results be the same for a superordinate word? I also felt they strongly guided the logic and thinking of the students. Knowing what we now know about there reaction to the kolper data in that order, what happens if we don't give them the superordinate term in the first sentence? Would that level the playing field between the holistic and analytic thinkers more? --Paul From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Apr 21 14:26:09 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3LIQ9LU011022 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3LIQ60H080018 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 613 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:26:06 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:26:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 508 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:26:05 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:26:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 27726 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:25:52 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:25:52 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4900686 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:25:52 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 4277 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:25:52 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:25:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 15798 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2007 18:25:51 -0000 Received: from email4.acsu.buffalo.edu (HELO email5.acsu.buffalo.edu) (128.205.7.94) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Apr 2007 18:25:51 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Origin: 72.88.113.50 X-Mailer: AtMail 4.61 - 72.88.113.50 - petrova3@buffalo.edu X-UB-Relay: (email4.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1609.1177179951@buffalo.edu> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:25:51 -0400 Reply-To: petrova3@buffalo.edu Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: Nyurguyana Petrova Subject: CSE727: van Daalen-Kapteijns & M.Elshout-Mohr (1981) "The Acquisition of Word Meanings as a Cognitive Learning Process" To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (email4.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3144/Sat Apr 21 08:20:45 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU id l3LIQ9LU011022 Status: R Content-Length: 1555 M.M. van Daalen-Kapteijns & M.Elshout-Mohr (1981) "The Acquisition of Word Meanings as a Cognitive Learning Process": In General Discussion part of the article the authors state the following: "The flexibility in the attachment of meanings to words must be tremendous, but on the other hand, the complexity and ambiguity of the information must be somehow reduced" [p 398]. This statement once again shows how much challenging is the problem of word acquisition from context. It is clear that the meaning of a word cannot be random, that is it is somehow has to be related to its "standard" meaning (given in a dictionary or a thesaurus). However, under the influence of a context a meaning of a word can stretch so vastly, that only a well structured knowledge base can help out in figuring out a meaning of a word in these cases. This idea was elaborated by the authors as the following: "We hypothesize that a similar relation holds for our subjects, which means that analytic model utilization, demonstrated by high verbals, is made possible by a well structured knowledge representation" [ p.398]. At the end of the discussion as the future research the authors bring out very interesting question ("A second intriguing research question is whether low verbals will profit from a training in the high verbals' strategies" [p. 399]) to which I suppose the answer would be rather 'no' than 'yes' for obvious reasons. However, I am curious if this research has taken place at all. If it did, it would be interesting to know what was the output. -Yana From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Apr 21 21:43:32 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3M1hWtO026355 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3M1hUFH005457 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 7445 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 01:43:30 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 01:43:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 12312 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 01:43:30 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 01:43:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 20641 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 01:43:17 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 01:43:17 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4906006 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:43:17 -0400 Delivered-To: cse727-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 23003 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 01:43:17 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 01:43:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 2501 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 01:43:16 -0000 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net (68.168.78.199) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 01:43:16 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [68.168.86.62]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20070422014315.RLOK14403.mta9.adelphia.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:43:15 -0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UB-Relay: (mta9.adelphia.net) X-PM-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <462ABDDC.9020707@cse.buffalo.edu> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:43:56 -0400 Reply-To: Jeffrey Howell Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: Jeffrey Howell Subject: CSE 727: van Daalen-Kapteijns & Elshout-Mohr (1981) To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (mta9.adelphia.net) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3146/Sat Apr 21 15:39:19 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1735 Seems like this was a popular reading today... One difficulty I see with the two experiments conducted here is the artificial nature of the context involved - each sentence seemed relatively natural in the 'kolpers' example, but the five sentences grouped together seemed very much intended to direct the readers to a particular definition, which just isn't normally the way a person encounters a new word. The two minute time limit doesn't help much either. I was also struck by the relatively small number of protocols - 16 is large enough for our purposes, but we were just trying to get a rough idea of what background knowledge Cassie would need - if you really want a deeper understanding of how people are learning new words from context, I would think greater numbers would be needed to reach any definite conclusions. It was interesting to note that the different approaches, at least in the first experiment, didn't lead to a greatly different end result; in the end the subjects basically had the same definitions in mind for the words. The fact that there was a greater difference in the second experiment only seemed to suggest to me that the analytic approach was more effective if you start off with a greater amount of information - but since the holistic approach in the first experiment generally seemed to pick up the idea that kolpers were windows anyway, I'm not sure why that would make such a big difference. In the end, I think I'm just as interested in figuring out why the holistic approach is as effective as it is - what cognitive processes lead to the same end result despite what seems like a relatively inefficient approach - as I am about any other aspect of the experiments. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Apr 22 11:47:38 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MFlc1t015469 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:47:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3MFlZCR044014 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 19286 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:47:35 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:47:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 29701 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:47:35 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:47:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 19356 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:47:29 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:47:29 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4914975 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:47:29 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 19590 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:47:12 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:47:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 424 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:47:12 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:47:12 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MFlBoZ015426 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3MFlBEc015425 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:47:11 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704221547.l3MFlBEc015425@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:47:11 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Van Daalen et al. To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3146/Sat Apr 21 15:39:19 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 819 Paul wrote: | | I've been trying to think of other cognitive abilities that benefit | more for the holitic approach. | ... | But if you grow up speaking Dutch and learn English as a second | language, I could imagine trying to match your Dutch vocabulary with | English words is highly profitable. There are a great many cognates. | You probably wouldn't understand the finer differences until much | later in your studies, at which point you would essentially be | refining words that you are already quite familiar with. But how would the holistic approach help here? The holistic approach that van Daalen-Kapteijns et al. found that some people used involves throwing out your entire hypothesis each time you encounter a word again and starting from scratch, rather than analyitically refinining your theory. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Apr 22 11:53:30 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MFrUtL015638 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3MFrSVJ044464 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 6058 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:53:28 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:53:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 6047 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:53:28 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:53:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 27643 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:53:26 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:53:26 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4915072 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:53:26 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 22785 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:53:26 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:53:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 2697 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 15:53:24 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 15:53:24 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MFrNSw015629 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3MFrNSF015628 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:53:23 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704221553.l3MFrNSF015628@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:53:23 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE727: van Daalen-Kapteijns and Elshout-Mohr 1981 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3146/Sat Apr 21 15:39:19 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1228 Paul wrote: | | ...The final transformed idea is "kolpers transmit little | light." I imagine CASSIE could have difficulty inherently dealing | with this type of transformation because humans produce many | transformations that are not logically sound. Take a look at: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/CVA/kolper.html to see how far Cassie has gotten with "kolper". | I guess, in the ideal | world, we would program CASSIE with a Rigorous? variable. When | Rigorous? is true, CASSIE only uses sound logic. When false, CASSIE | uses more human-like logic (with all the necessary fallacies). Actually, Cassie's logic is probably quite a bit more human-like than it is rigorous in the first-order sense. For one thing, Cassie can revise her beliefs. | They call "window" a superordinate but it is | really a basic-level term. It's superordinate with respect to "kolper". The notion of superordinate-basic-subordinate is a relative ranking. Although most people would agree on which words are basic-level and which sub- or superordinate, there are well-known differences. E.g., for cityfolk like me, "tree" is basic-level, but for country folk, "tree" is a superordinate" and "elm" and "oak" are basic-level. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Apr 22 12:06:22 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MG6LYX015955 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3MG6I4h045162 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25218 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:06:18 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:06:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 29784 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:06:18 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:06:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 10009 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:06:03 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:06:03 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4915244 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:06:03 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 29432 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:06:03 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:06:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 4920 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:05:41 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:05:41 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MG5eDn015937 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3MG5eLm015936 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:05:40 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704221605.l3MG5eLm015936@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:05:40 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE727: van Daalen-Kapteijns & M.Elshout-Mohr (1981) To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3146/Sat Apr 21 15:39:19 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3138 Yana wrote: | However, under the influence of a context a | meaning of a word can stretch so vastly, that only a well structured knowledge | base can help out in figuring out a meaning of a word in these cases. This idea | was elaborated by the authors as the following: "We hypothesize that a similar | relation holds for our subjects, which means that analytic model utilization, | demonstrated by high verbals, is made possible by a well structured knowledge | representation" [ p.398]. I like your way of putting it. One main feature we've found in the CVA project is how much PK is needed and how important it is; this is one of the points I make in:' Rapaport, William J. (2005), "In Defense of Contextual Vocabulary Acquisition: How to Do Things with Words in Context", in A. Dey et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (Context-05) (Berlin: Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3554): 396-409. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/paris.pdf | At the end of the discussion as the future research the authors bring out very | interesting question ("A second intriguing research question is whether low | verbals will profit from a training in the high verbals' strategies" [p. 399]) to | which I suppose the answer would be rather 'no' than 'yes' for obvious reasons. | However, I am curious if this research has taken place at all. If it did, it | would be interesting to know what was the output. Offhand, I don't know, but they and others have followed up on some issues; take a look at: Elshout-Mohr, Marianne & Van Daalen-Kapteijns, Maartje M. (1987), "Cognitive Processes in Learning Word Meanings," in Margaret G. McKeown & Mary E. Curtis (eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates): 53-71. (not online) Fukkink, R.G., & de Glopper, K. (1998), "Effects of Instruction in Deriving Word Meaning from Context: A Meta-Analysis", Review of Educational Research 68: 450-458. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/fukkinkdeglopper98.pdf Swanborn, M.S.L., & de Glopper, K. (1999), "Incidental Word Learning while Reading: A Meta-Analysis", Review of Educational Research 69: 261-285. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/swanborndeglopper99.pdf Van Daalen-Kapteijns, Maartje; Elshout-Mohr, Marianne; & De Glopper, Kees (2001), "Deriving the Meaning of Unknown Words from Multiple Contexts", Language Learning 51(1) (March 2001): 145-181. http://tinyurl.com/2n3uoq (if that doesn't work from a buffalo.edu machine, go through the UB Library Electronic Journal list) Fukkink, Ruben G. (2002), "Effects of Instruction on Deriving Word Meaning from Context and Incidental Word Learning" L1--Educational Studies in Language and Literature 2: 37-57. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/fukkink02.pdf Fukkink, R.G. (2005), Deriving Word Meaning from Written Context: A Process Analysis", [PDF] Learning and Instruction 15: 23-43. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/fukkink_2005.pdf From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Apr 22 12:10:54 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MGArIU016057 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3MGAowu045338 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:10:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 3049 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:10:50 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:10:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 3002 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:10:49 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:10:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 14721 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:10:38 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:10:38 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4915339 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:10:38 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 1818 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:10:38 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:10:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 14448 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2007 16:10:37 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Apr 2007 16:10:37 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3MGAb5d016045 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3MGAbbl016044 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:10:37 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704221610.l3MGAbbl016044@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:10:37 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE 727: van Daalen-Kapteijns & Elshout-Mohr (1981) To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3146/Sat Apr 21 15:39:19 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2125 Jeff wrote: | | One difficulty I see with the two experiments conducted here is the | artificial nature of the context involved - each sentence seemed | relatively natural in the 'kolpers' example, but the five sentences | grouped together seemed very much intended to direct the readers to a | particular definition, which just isn't normally the way a person | encounters a new word. True, but keep in mind that they were trying to replicate a similarly guided approach developed in AI by Patrick Winston. Winston, Patrick Henry (1975), "Learning Structural Descriptions from Examples" [PDF], in Patrick Henry Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision (New York: McGraw-Hill): 157-209; reprinted in Ronald J. Brachman & Hector J. Levesque (eds.), Readings in Knowledge Representation (Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1985): 141-168. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/winston75.pdf | It was interesting to note that the different approaches, at least in | the first experiment, didn't lead to a greatly different end result; in | the end the subjects basically had the same definitions in mind for the | words. The fact that there was a greater difference in the second | experiment only seemed to suggest to me that the analytic approach was | more effective if you start off with a greater amount of information - | but since the holistic approach in the first experiment generally seemed | to pick up the idea that kolpers were windows anyway, I'm not sure why | that would make such a big difference. | | In the end, I think I'm just as interested in figuring out why the | holistic approach is as effective as it is - what cognitive processes | lead to the same end result despite what seems like a relatively | inefficient approach - as I am about any other aspect of the experiments. Interesting question. It's almost certainly related to the fact that had someone started with, say, the 3rd or 4th sentence, they might have succeeded but it would have been closer to a "holistic" approach since there would not have been any earlier hypothesis to refine. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 24 06:37:15 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3OAbFSW024524 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3OAbBKa072268 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 21101 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 10:37:11 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 10:37:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 21733 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 10:37:11 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 10:37:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 17150 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 10:36:49 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 10:36:49 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4978669 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:36:49 -0400 Delivered-To: cse727-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 19369 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 10:36:49 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 10:36:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 25993 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 10:36:48 -0000 Received: from 67-20-233-65.kntnny.adelphia.net (HELO pavano) (67.20.233.65) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 10:36:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-UB-Relay: (67-20-233-65.kntnny.adelphia.net) X-PM-Spam-Prob: XX: 22% Message-ID: <000b01c7865c$75a6fe20$41e91443@pavano> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:36:46 -0400 Reply-To: "J. A." Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "J. A." Subject: CSE727: Comments on van Daalen-Kapteijns & Elshout-Mohr 1981 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (67-20-233-65.kntnny.adelphia.net) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3154/Tue Apr 24 02:13:03 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO Content-Length: 1287 Interestingly enough, this paper is not referenced anywhere in Schatz and Baldwin 1986. Perhaps if they read this paper first they would have avoided encountering many of the faults which plagued their study. For instance, these researchers took great pains in crafting both the sentences and the test questions in order to force the test subjects into giving a definition-style answer. Multiple contexts were provided and they were all informative without giving away the meaning of the word completely. The correctness of the answers was also measured much more objectively, using a point scale instead of simply assessing a response as right or wrong. In the CVA algorithms, the slots in the frames are filled and changed as more and more information is represented in the network. This somewhat parallels the reformulation and transformation processes that occur in "decontextualization." Initial contextual information serves to fill in different slots in a mental model and are modified and adapted as more and more information is presented. This behavior was seen in many of the demonstrations this semester. For example, the slot for class inclusions lost the "possible" qualification when information directly related to the noun or verb was added. - Joe From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 24 11:35:30 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3OFZT6u006005 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3OFZMxv089412 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 3497 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:35:22 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:35:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 3390 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:35:21 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:35:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 27467 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:35:19 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:35:19 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4991447 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:35:18 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 823 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:35:18 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:35:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 11419 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Apr 2007 15:35:18 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 128.205.208.233 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1177428918.462e23b60ccb6@mail3.buffalo.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:35:18 -0400 Reply-To: ask8@BUFFALO.EDU Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: Ashish Kulkarni Subject: CSE 727: Van Daalen Kapteijns and M-Elshout Mohr To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3155/Tue Apr 24 09:27:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1181 An interesting approach toward differentiate the way the two models worked was Experiment 2 in which the student were given the initial meaning of ‘Kolper’ which is a window. Even though it is a good idea to make both holistic and analytic thinkers, think along the same lines such Kolper is a window which is shady, dark, transmits less light etc, the result would seem holistic but still analytical thinkers would have thought analytically to get their required answer. I would say that because in experiment 1 it does not take time to reach to the conclusion that kolpers are some kind of windows even if you have analytical or holistic approach. So I think experiment 2 didn’t serve the purpose it meant to. Moreover in the general discussion it is argued that high- and low- verbal subjects do not construct neologism’s meanings in the same manner. The probable reason for the same would be that the low verbal subjects are non native speakers and speak a language with different grammar and structure from that of English. If their native language has similar grammatical structure or base to English then their approach to neologism would be like the high- verbal subjects. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 24 11:55:19 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3OFtIdc006984 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3OFrcaX090466 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 28584 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:46:57 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:46:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 28510 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:46:56 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:46:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 2308 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:46:54 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:46:54 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4991781 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:46:54 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 6614 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:46:46 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:46:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 26423 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 15:46:45 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 15:46:45 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3OFkjh4006643 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3OFkjLA006642 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704241546.l3OFkjLA006642@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE 727: Van Daalen Kapteijns and M-Elshout Mohr To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3155/Tue Apr 24 09:27:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 678 Ashish wrote: | Moreover in the general discussion it is argued that high- and low- | verbal subjects do not construct neologism’s meanings in the same | manner. The probable reason for the same would be that the low verbal | subjects are non native speakers and speak a language with different | grammar and structure from that of English. If their native language has | similar grammatical structure or base to English then their approach to | neologism would be like the high- verbal subjects. I don't quite follow this. None of their subjects were native speakers of English, but all were native speakers of Dutch, and the experiment and the sentences were all in Dutch. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 24 13:02:36 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3OH2aGI009513 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3OH2VDI094805 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 6261 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 17:02:31 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 17:02:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 2516 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 17:02:29 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 17:02:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 17387 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 17:02:13 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 17:02:13 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4996257 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:02:13 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 1459 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 17:02:13 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 17:02:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 23314 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Apr 2007 17:02:13 -0000 References: <200704241546.l3OFkjLA006642@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 128.205.196.93 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1177434133.462e381545da3@mail3.buffalo.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:02:13 -0400 Reply-To: ask8@BUFFALO.EDU Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: Ashish Kulkarni Subject: Re: CSE 727: Van Daalen Kapteijns and M-Elshout Mohr To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: <200704241546.l3OFkjLA006642@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3155/Tue Apr 24 09:27:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1451 I meant to say that when you when we look at high verbal speaker of a language then the person is well acquainted with how the language is spoken or understood. When it comes to low verbal speaker of a language, the person might not be a native speaker of that language and then must be reading or understanding the language as his or her native language. So the difference in approach toward neologism might be because of that reason. At the same time if the native language of the low verbal speaker is similar to the language the speaker is being tested on, then there is a good chance that the speaker has similar approach to neologism like high verbal speakers. Quoting "William J. Rapaport" : > Ashish wrote: > > | Moreover in the general discussion it is argued that high- and > low- > | verbal subjects do not construct neologism’s meanings in the same > | manner. The probable reason for the same would be that the low > verbal > | subjects are non native speakers and speak a language with > different > | grammar and structure from that of English. If their native > language has > | similar grammatical structure or base to English then their > approach to > | neologism would be like the high- verbal subjects. > > I don't quite follow this. None of their subjects were native > speakers > of English, but all were native speakers of Dutch, and the > experiment > and the sentences were all in Dutch. > >