Talk:Psycholinguistics/Lexical Access

The plan of your chapter is very well structured. I think that if you stick with this outline, and find research that supports all of your subsections, this could be a strong paper. As it is right now, you are relying too much on the class text. Instead of citing Jay, look up the articles that he references to use as primary sources. You will likely find that these articles give you a fuller understanding of the concepts in the text, which will enable you to convey the material more clearly to your readers.

In your introductory section, I would start off by defining lexical access. I like how you have a link to the Mental Lexicon page, but I think it would be appropriate to premise that with a brief explanation of your own that engages the readers. You could use the “mental dictionary” analogy Dr. Newman talked about in class. This might give readers a basic way of conceptualizing lexical access.

When talking about word frequency, offer explanations for why frequency enhances the ease of lexical access. You could talk about the principle of least effort to support the idea that it takes less effort to access words that we read/use frequently. The following article has some good information on this idea: (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/788.full)

I like your bulleted definitions in your section on lexical ambiguity--they are clear and concise. However, you should include an introduction for the section and examples for each type of access and meaning. Also, it might be interesting to delve further into the selective access model by looking at levels of semantic processing. Here, you could describe the Stroop task, and even present the original Stroop task in your chapter for readers to experience how they access one word easier than another. Check out the Stroop task here: http://woldorfflab.ccn.duke.edu/files/pdfs/neuropsychologia2000.38.pdf

Generally, many of your sections simply need more explanation and examples. For instance, explain how concrete versus abstract words influence lexical access (don’t just state that differences exist). Also, a stylistic suggestion is to avoid writing in the first person (I, my). Too many first-person pronouns will make the chapter seem like a personal reflection or project, rather than a general learning resource. Another writing recommendation is to re-word the relationship you describe between words and their meaning in the Lexical Ambiguity section. I understand Jay describes the relationship as a ratio, but I feel like there is a better way to explain that the relationship between words and their meaning(s) is flexible, irregular, undefined, etc.

Like I said, sticking to your outline will give readers a solid understanding of lexical access. However, to make the chapter a little more interesting, you might consider including a section on deficits in lexical access. You could talk a bit about aphasia here, and/or link to the psycholinguistics page on aphasia. The following article explores the topic: Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (January 01, 1997). Lexical Access in Aphasic and Nonaphasic Speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 4, 801.

Finally, while writing, keep in mind that these chapters are intended for people in the general public. To make the content accessible and enjoyable to them, you need to make it relevant to them somehow. Do this by introducing your main ideas in fairly basic terms that anyone can understand. Try to find social references and examples of lexical access to draw readers in (and keep them interested). Then as you proceed, provide more details that help explain and validate your main idea.

I hope this helps as you continue working on your chapter. Good luck with the rest of it!

(129.173.209.105 20:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________