h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A634907

This is a discussion of the major linguistic models of lexical access (that is how we chose which word to use, and how we decide what a word means) based on work I did while an undergraduate. I put it up on the guide because there wasn't anything else on the subject and I felt there should be. I have tried to make it easy to read and understand and it is intended as a neutral discription and comparison of the theories rather than a in depth critism or discussion. I used dyslexia as a basis for description in order to aid understanding as a lot of people are familiar with it.

Flipping heck. It's a wonder we're able to communicate at all I think I've gone all dyslexic reading this entry. Seriously though, I found it interesting but very heavy going. If you broke it up with some headings, proof read it, spell checked it - that sort of thing, I think it would make it more reader friendly.

A glossary and some footnotes might help too. Explain words like 'phoneme', 'morpheme', 'grapheme' and 'orthographic'.

nice articles, but it would be better to split them up. this is an ideal university project, having entries on each if the models, with other simple entries explaining the common terms that make up the technical vocabulary.

also, making it into guideml would help.

Having said that, I do have some technical problems with the content.

The primary problem, is that it comes across as "ain't connectionism wonderfull", while completely ignoring the not inconsiderable problems that is inherent in the technique.

NOTE: I am not saying connectionism is wrong, but if you are going to pick the others to pieces and point out their problems, not doing the same to connectionism smells a bit.

You fail to utilise the knowledge we already know about searching and sorting (see "the art of computer programming; volume 3" by donald e knuth). you pick one of the theories apart for being linear sort based, but ignore that you can trivially get around this using standard relational database techniques. this, combined with the fact that we know from other research that some sorting goes on while we are dreaming, leaves that part with a problem.

We also know from medical research on brain damaged patients that there are a set of filters that are applied in order, each of which can cause problems at a different level of identification. these definately include morpheme identification, but also include things like thematic classification, phoneme classification, and various other syntactic and semantic components, none of which get so much as a passing mention, all of which will have some effect upon the lexical storage and retrieval methodology.

there is also the presumption that talking, writing and singing all use the same methods, which due to the number of different sub-systems involved can't be completely true. in fact, we know from brain damage research that writing uses a diffent set of processes from sound production, and that people who can't speak can still sing (and vice versa).

none of these facts are covered in your article. dispite the fact that lots of them will considerably strengthen or weaken one model or another.

interesting though. keep up the good work.

An interesting article, jonnyara.

The subject matter is interesting. I don't have enough background information to discuss the facts you present.

As a person without that background information, I have to say that I think you may have fallen into the "jargon trap."

Words that you accept as just part of the general vocabulary that are actually fairly specialized appear in the article, without a plain-English definition. That has already been addressed in previous posts on this thread.

Also, choosing a not-quite random paragraph as an exapmle, you say:

"Although Forster's model has a phonological file that means that words can be accessed simply by their phonological features which could explain why the majority of errors a dyslexic makes are phonlogical rather than simple spelling slips (Doyle 1996) (eg. the recogniton of 'fizzicks'as 'physics' without acknowledgement of the mistake) the way in which it does this is over-complicated, as it presumes that the dyslexic seraches the orphographic file and then the phonological file without taking twice the amount of time to do so in comparison to recognising a word spelt correctly."

Whew. That's a single sentence. I suggest that you may want to break it up for the sake of readability. Something like:

"Forster's model has a phonological file. This means that words can be accessed simply by their phonological features and could explain why the majority of errors a dyslexic makes are phonological, rather tham simple spelling slips. (For example, recognizing 'fizzicks' as 'physics' without acknowledgement of the mistake).

"The problem is, the way in which it does this is over-complicated. It presumes that the dyslexic seraches the orphographic file and then the phonological file without taking twice the amount of time to do so in comparison to recognising a word spelt correctly."

Unfamiliar words that I can figure out if I think about it, but which you may want to define for the easily intimidated reader:

phonological
orphographic

Assuming that the information presented is accurate (and I so assume that it is), I think that if you make it read a bit less like a paper written for a professor and more like a paper written for the general public, it will make the guide.

I look forward to seeing it there.

"(and I so assume that it is)"

NBY - qualified to give editing suggestions?

Thanks for the comments guys, I've started to rework the piece. Its surprising how difficult it is sometimes to notice when you
a) accidently state an opinion
b) use uncommon terminology

watch this space!

>Watching<

"Uncommon terminology," or "specialized language" or "jargon" is the biggest trap I've found. When we use terms on the job, in our daily lives, we forget that these terms aren't used, or even understood, by most of the world.

I'm looking forward to your reworked piece.

NBY

although jargon can be a problem, some jargon cannot be dispensed with. without good enough linguistic constructs, you just can't talk about some stuff.

Xyroth,

I agree completely. It's just a matter of defining the term the first time you use it, or footnoting a definition.

Arg! I'm suddenly really busy, so this may take a bit more time to finish at the moment. I was thinking about the following non-syntax based changes:
Rearranging the connectionism seciton so that it is more of an anaylsis of the theory rather than a recommendation.

Adding a bit of biological/neurological evidence to make it seem more grounded

Starting the whole thing with a paragraph about the terminology, or possibly writing a different article about lingusitic terminology and referencing that (that way I can keep adding to it if I decide to write, or anyone else decides to write a similar essay.

Split the whole thing into sections with big orange titles.

* waiting *
A very interesting subject because I always wonder why I keep forgetting those, err, waddayacallit, thingies, ... aaah! *words*!

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Models of retrival and the Mental Lexicon, with specific consideration of dyslexia'.

This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

Jonnyara: Congratulations! Your entry has been picked for the Edited Guide. Any changes or additions you wish to make to the entry should be done quickly, as the entry will go to a sub-ed to be tweaked, then to the editors. You'll receive an e-mail notifying you when it's due to appear. Thanks for writing such an informative article!