Ease of predication does not account for imageability effects in performance: a reply to Jones (2002).
In this paper we defend our views against claim that the criticism of the ease of predication hypothesis (Jones, 1985) made by de Mornay Davies and Funnell (2000) is "fundamentally flawed." Jones raises five issues concerning the content of the text, the reliability of effects of ease of predication, the generation of predicates, semantic features, and memory retrieval. We address each of these issues in turn and show that either a critical point raised is not made, or the point is mistaken. More importantly we show that our empirical findings, which are entirely overlooked by Jones, unequivocally support the view that ease of predication does not account for imageability effects in performance.
de Mornay Davies
Paul
P
Psychology Academic Group, School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, Enfield, UK. paul32@mdx.ac.uk
Funnell
Elaine
E
D003463:Cues; D004410:Dyslexia; D006801:Humans; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D012660:Semantics