Lab Meeting, Summer 2015, Week 4
Awe- and Aw-inspiring readings (or just stuff you think deserves a mention)
What we did over last week
Florian
Finished writing/editing the paper with Dan Gildea. Submitted it to Science. Had it triaged later that week with standard form letter. sigh. Now we're submitting to Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B.
Finished editing paper with Liz Karuza et al on self-paced reading during statistical learning. The paper is about to be submitted to JEP:General and after being triaged there, we will submit to JEP:LMC ;).
Wrote a draft for a Frontiers commentary on "What the heck is salience?".
- Edited (twice) through Experiment 1 and 2 of paper with Lindsay Butler et al on animacy effects in Spanish and Yucatec.
Agreed with Joe Toscano on final steps for his paper. He discovered a bug in his code, so that the code didn't (quite) do what we had wanted to do (and said we did in the paper). After some discussion, we decided that this could be anti-conservative and that the simulations therefore need to be rerun.
Started using a task-organizer in a hopeless attempt to get more organized. So far, so happy.
Figured out how we will pay McGill for the lab retreat. The total cost was about $3100 for food and accommodation. Michael, Meghan, and Morgan said that they will cover $800 of the food and $1000 of the accommodation since we had to travel. Chigusa and I will split the rest.
Talked with Tal Linzen about his various job offers. At the end it seems to make most sense for him to go to Paris to work with Emmanuell Dupoux, who does really interesting behavioral, computational, and imaging work on language processing. Tal will be working on distributional semantics. We will, however, likely write an NSF grant together this summer, with the goal to continue to collaborate.
Edited through two wonderfully detailed result reports by Scott Fraundorf on his need+PARTICIPLE experiments. We are now finally getting quite interpretable and interesting results. This includes a first VWP eye-tracking study on adaptation to this novel syntactic structure in speech. This is quite critical, as it --in my view-- substantially reduced the likelihood that the omission of to be is interpreted as a typo/error (in speech, such as error would be reflected in acoustic changes surrounding the error site). This might also hold the key to some of our new reading results on need+PARTICIPLE adaptation, which suggest that normal readers seem to generalize expectations from need+PARTICIPLE to other omission errors. If you're interested, remind me and I could give you an overview.
Chigusa
Andrew
Olga
Esteban
Dave
Sarah
Dan
Amanda
- worked on the production task for the mammals study
- worked on my MXPrag talk (to be given on the 1st, so it'll be done by the time lab meeting happens)
- tentatively set up a meeting with Elspeth Wilson (a student of Napoleon Katsos) at MXPrag, because she emailed me about my talk and wanted to chat
- returned job's belongings, hung out with job, maybe tried to set up plans to see geertje (I'm writing this before taking off, but I assume I'll do these things by Monday)
Zach
Linda