Abstract
L. L. Bonatti, M. Peña, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (see record 2006-06642-010) argued that P. Perruchet, M. D. Tyler, N. Galland, and R. Peereman (see record 2004-21166-008) confused the notions of segmentation and generalization by ignoring the evidence for generalization in M. Peña, L. L. Bonatti, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (see record 2002-06215-001). In this reply, the authors reformulate and complement their initial arguments, showing that their way of dealing with segmentation and generalization is not due to confusion or ignorance but rather to the fact that the tests used in Peña et al. make it likely that neither segmentation nor generalization were captured in their experiments. Finally, the authors address the challenge posed by Pena et al. of accounting for the whole pattern of their results without invoking rule-based, algebraic-like computations.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 |
Keywords
- algebra
- associative processes
- cognitive processes
- language
- statistical analysis
- words (phonetic units)
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Do we need algebraic-like computations? : a reply to Bonatti, Pena, Nespor and Mehler'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver