Operational plausibility - Revision history

PaulSank: minor correction

2018-03-08T05:24:07Z

minor correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 8 March 2018
Line 41:		Line 41:
	===Sources===		===Sources===
	*Dell, Gary S. & Peter A. Reich. 1980. Slips of the tongue: The facts and a stratificational model. ''Papers in Cognitive-Stratificational Linguistics'', ed. by James Copeland and Philip Davis, 19-34. Rice University Studies, vol. 66, no. 2. Houston: Rice University.		*Dell, Gary S. & Peter A. Reich. 1980. Slips of the tongue: The facts and a stratificational model. ''Papers in Cognitive-Stratificational Linguistics'', ed. by James Copeland and Philip Davis, 19-34. Rice University Studies, vol. 66, no. 2. Houston: Rice University.
	*Eble, Connie. 2000. Slang and lexicography. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 4499-		*Eble, Connie. 2000. Slang and lexicography. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 4499-511.
	511.
	*Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. ''Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language''. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.		*Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. ''Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language''. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
	*Lamb, Sydney M. 2001. Questions of Evidence in Neurocognitive Linguistics.		*Lamb, Sydney M. 2001. Questions of Evidence in Neurocognitive Linguistics.
	*Lamb, Sydney M. 2016. Linguistic structure: A plausible theory. ''Language Under Discussion''.		*Lamb, Sydney M. 2016. Linguistic structure: A plausible theory. ''Language Under Discussion''.
	*Lederer, Richard. 1987. ''Anguished English''. New York: Dell Publishing.		*Lederer, Richard. 1987. ''Anguished English''. New York: Dell Publishing.
	*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1991. “What shall we talk about next?”: Cognitive topic in the		*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1991. “What shall we talk about next?”: Cognitive topic in the production and interpretation of conversation. ''LACUS Forum XVII:85-98''.
	production and interpretation of conversation. ''LACUS Forum XVII:85-98''.		*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1992. Twice-told tales: Aspects of the storage and expression of personal experience. ''LACUS Forum XVIII:63-74''.
	*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1992. Twice-told tales: Aspects of the storage and expression of personal		*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 2000. Cognitive networks in conversation. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 253-266.
	experience. ''LACUS Forum XVIII:63-74''.		*Müller, Ernst-August. 2000. Valence and phraseology in stratificational linguistics. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 3-21.
	*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 2000. Cognitive networks in conversation. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000:
	253-266.
	*Müller, Ernst-August. 2000. Valence and phraseology in stratificational linguistics.
	Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 3-21.
	*Reich, Peter A. 1985. Unintentional puns. LACUS Forum XI.314-322.		*Reich, Peter A. 1985. Unintentional puns. LACUS Forum XI.314-322.

PaulSank: sources added

2018-03-08T05:22:41Z

sources added

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 8 March 2018
Line 35:		Line 35:
	<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?		<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
	<br>Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>		<br>Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
	We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the		We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.
	woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

	There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.		There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

	===Sources===		===Sources===
	*Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory~~" in <i>[http://www~~.~~ludjournal.org~~ Language Under Discussion~~]</i>~~, ~~published online June 2~~, ~~2016~~.		*Dell, Gary S. & Peter A. Reich. 1980. Slips of the tongue: The facts and a stratificational model. ''Papers in Cognitive-Stratificational Linguistics'', ed. by James Copeland and Philip Davis, 19-34. Rice University Studies, vol. 66, no. 2. Houston: Rice University.
	*~~Lamb~~, ~~Sydney M~~. ~~"Questions~~ of ~~Evidence~~ in ~~Neurocognitive Linguistics"~~, ~~2001~~.		*Eble, Connie. 2000. Slang and lexicography. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 4499-
			511.
			*Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. ''Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language''. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
			*Lamb, Sydney M. 2001. Questions of Evidence in Neurocognitive Linguistics.
			*Lamb, Sydney M. 2016. Linguistic structure: A plausible theory. ''Language Under Discussion''.
			*Lederer, Richard. 1987. ''Anguished English''. New York: Dell Publishing.
			*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1991. “What shall we talk about next?”: Cognitive topic in the
			production and interpretation of conversation. ''LACUS Forum XVII:85-98''.
			*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1992. Twice-told tales: Aspects of the storage and expression of personal
			experience. ''LACUS Forum XVIII:63-74''.
			*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 2000. Cognitive networks in conversation. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000:
			253-266.
			*Müller, Ernst-August. 2000. Valence and phraseology in stratificational linguistics.
			Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 3-21.
			*Reich, Peter A. 1985. Unintentional puns. LACUS Forum XI.314-322.

	===See also===		===See also===
	[[Developmental plausibility]]		*[[Developmental plausibility]]
	~~<br>~~[[Neurological plausibility]]		*[[Neurological plausibility]]

	[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]		[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

PaulSank: source added

2018-03-02T23:32:50Z

source added

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 2 March 2018
Line 41:		Line 41:

	===Sources===		===Sources===
	Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in <i>[http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion]</i>, published online June 2, 2016.		*Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in <i>[http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion]</i>, published online June 2, 2016.
			*Lamb, Sydney M. "Questions of Evidence in Neurocognitive Linguistics", 2001.

	===See also===		===See also===

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

2018-03-02T22:58:19Z