Talk:Semantic satiation

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. No objections. Aervanath (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

This page appears to describe the term "semantic satiation", and a quick Google-count shows approx 4:1 usage of "semantic satiation". I suggest "semantic saturation" be renamed "semantic satiation" with an appropriate redirect on the old term. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

seconded --AndreasBWagner (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Paragraph removed

I removed the following uncited paragraph which has been fact-tagged since June. It seems to be discussing an entirely different phenomenon.

The phenomenon was also shown to apply at the macro level by analyzing the life span of popular hit songs as given in weekly charts by trade magazines. Songs that were instant hits, taking only a few weeks to rise to the top, disappeared from the ratings charts faster than songs that took more weeks to rise to the top ten. The explanation was that the fast-rising hit songs get played on the radio more frequently (by all disc jockeys), creating semantic satiation of those songs in listeners more rapidly than songs that are introduced and played gradually.

Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Massed negative practice

This seems to be closely related to Massed negative practice, could the two articles share some information? AndreasBWagner (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. MNP has to do with a more generalized phenomenon (not just vocal) and relates it with physical fatigue, not a loss of meaning in a phrase. (I do realize how incredibly late I am) (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Further reading section seems excessive

The further reading list could be more selective —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quorn3000 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to have gotten any smaller since your comment... I've added the {{Further reading cleanup}} template to the section now. --V2Blast (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

language log

Here's a post on the topic: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2833

67.119.12.141 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture

It seems as though the movie Pontypool would also be a good addition. I'm not doing it myself because this is not my area of expertise, but it did come to mind. Cheers! TwoSpear 01:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoSpear (talk • contribs)

Another entry for such as section could be episode 6 ("Two Aces") of season 1 of Ted Lasso.[1] --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed “also semantic saturation”.

I see no evidence that this is an appropriate alternative name for this effect. The literature describing the effect refers to “satiation” and the redirect from “semantic saturation” will catch any searches for the incorrect name. DAnuu (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Communist world

This may explain why communist ideology collapses in people's minds really fast when the oppressive regime topples: the overabundance of communist propaganda slogans on every wall makes it dissipate rather than imprint in the brain, so it quickly vanishes when the force is removed, regardless its merits (laborer must own its labor, there should be peace in the world, etc.) Staszek Lem (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the relevance of Matthew 6:7 in the See Also section

I'll remove it unless someone can show it's relevance 79.76.155.74 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It sure looks like someone's idea of attempted humor; the Bible verse in question is instructing the reader not to repeat themselves. In any case it's not useful or relevant, so I vote for its removal. AvaUVqSG3Nphw7wE (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

ta, done 79.76.136.13 (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)