Bonus example: In my diss, I found a Maze slowdown aligned with the classic "subordinate access" effect on homonyms. I interpreted it then as just a target processing cost... but was it? Interestingly, diffusion models agree: cases of slowdowns without extra errors are well-fit as slower t0. Cool.

Beyond just proof-of-concept, this is a cool way to see how Maze data comes from various processes, all affected by context. If your theory cares whether your Maze slowdowns come from target processing vs. foil processing vs decision-making, consider this modeling approach to get some insight!

Some simple max-lik fitting (nice tutorial: cran.r-project.org/web/packages...), and we can see the best fit to Laura's data indeed comes from models where context-related foils lead to lower drift rate---but ALSO faster non-decision processing! These foils seem harder to ignore AND faster to read.

Enter Ratcliff's diffusion model of decision-making, tried-and-true and easy to work with in R (thanks to @singmann.bsky.social and the rtdists package). Harder decisions can be modeled as lower drift rates, which have a joint effect, widening the distribution of expected RTs and increasing errors.

Seems like both effects come from the foil making the decision harder. But we can go beyond "seems like", cognitive psych has a long tradition of modeling how decision difficulty affects both RTs and accuracy! We wanted to see if these patterns work with those models.

We focus on how Maze measures can be affected by the difficulty of deciding between target and foil. In Laura's dissertation, she found a cool pattern: when you use a foil associated with the literal meaning of a prior metaphor ("early bird" → "fly"), you get slower RTs, and more errors.

awww hey now

... and that's not to mention the prospect of joining a department packed with thoughtful, curious, and imaginative linguists. I couldn't be more excited.

Meanwhile, recommendations are fully open for favorite LA spots, haunts, and locales!

This year, as the opportunities and support to do meaningful science in the US shrink day after day, I feel *beyond* fortunate to have this news. Especially since it brings a chance to double down on community-oriented work, + especially work to help serve 200k+!!! local speakers of Oaxacan langs.

And yet it's so oddly productive! Even "Are we any of us..."

If you'd be interested in attending the public portion of the defense to hear more, do reach out, there will be a remote option! In the meantime: many thanks to my committee, and everyone that's helped me along the way. (Yes, I am frantically writing my acknowledgments.)

I (begin to) argue for a picture where comprehenders select a single candidate interpretation on varying timelines, depending on the utility/risk of a rapid decision, given the type of ambiguity and their task/goals. Thankfully, lots more work to do to develop this further!

The dissertation—"On the timing of decisions about meaning during incremental comprehension"—is about, er, that. It aims to set up a wide view of interpretive garden paths, and when they do/don't show up, incl. with lexical ambiguity, scalar implicature, and causal inferences.