Remembering plurals: Unit of coding and form of coding during serial recall

Subjects were required to recall lists of six words which had been presented visually in sequence. One or two of the words might be plural nouns. A substantial number of errors occurred in which the plural form became detached from its original root. This is taken as evidence for a morpheme-based code as opposed to a unitary word code. A significantly high proportion of these errors maintained the form of the plural ( /S/, /Z/ or (ЪZ/) which is considered evidence for a primarily phonological coding of the plural morpheme. There is however a suggestion that on some occasions the plural is coded morphemically—i.e., in a way which does not distinguish between the various plural endings.     

Responding to indirect speech acts

Indirect speech acts, like the request Do you know the time?, have both a literal meaning, here “I ask you whether you know the time,” and an indirect meaning “I request you to tell me the time.” In this paper I outline a model of how listeners understand such speech acts and plan responses to them. The main proposals are these. The literal meaning of indirect speech acts can be intended to be taken seriously (along with the indirect meaning) or merely pro forma. In the first case listeners are expected to respond to both meanings, as in Yes, I do—it's six, but in the second case only to the indirect meaning, as in It's six. There are at least six sources of information listeners use in judging whether the literal meaning was intended seriously or pro forma, as well as whether there was intended to be any indirect meaning. These proposals were supported in five experiments in which ordinary requests for information were made by telephone of 950 local merchants.     

Adaptation of the category boundary between speech and nonspeech: A case against feature detectors

Two experiments were performed employing acoustic continua which change from speech to nonspeech. The members of one continuum, synthesized on the Pattern Playback, varied in the bandwidths of the first three formants in equal steps of change, from the vowel /α/ to a nonspeech buzz. The other continuum, achieved through digital synthesis, varied in the bandwidths of the first five formants, from the vowel /æ/ to a buzz. Identification and discrimination tests were carried out to establish that these continua were perceived categorically. Perceptual adaptation of these continua revealed shifts in the category boundaries comparable to those previously reported for speech sounds. The results were interpreted as suggesting that neither phonetic nor auditory feature detectors are responsible for perceptual adaptation of speech sounds, and that feature detector accounts of speech perception should therefore be reconsidered.     

Semantic focus and sentence comprehension.

Reaction time to detect a phoneme target in a sentence was found to be faster when the word in which the target occurred formed part of the semantic focus of the sentence. Focus was determined by asking a question before the sentence; that part of the sentence which comprised the answer to the sentence was assumed to be focussed. This procedure made it possible to vary position of focus within the sentence while holding all acoustic aspects of the sentence itself constant. It is argued that sentence understanding is facilitated by rapid identification of focussed information. Since focussed words are usually accented, it is further argued that the active search for accented words demonstrated in previous research should be interpreted as a search for semantic focus.     

Authoritarian personalities in the natural and social sciences

This research is an extension of a previous finding, that authoritarian personalities are predisposed to the social sciences and nonauthoritarians to the natural sciences. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) Within the social sciences, more authoritarian personalities enter economics and geography than psychology, social work, or sociology; and (2) between the first and last years in college, in “authoritarian departments” there is an increase, while in “nonauthoritarian departments” there is a decrease in the students' authoritarianism.