Publications
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10
-
Bauer, B. L. M. (2022). Counting systems. In A. Ledgeway, & M. Maiden (
Eds. ), The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics (pp. 459-488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Abstract
The Romance counting system is numerical – with residues of earlier systems whereby each commodity had its own unit of quantification – and decimal. Numeral formations beyond ‘10’ are compounds, combining two or more numerals that are in an arithmetical relation, typically that of addition and multiplication. Formal variation across the (standard) Romance languages and dialects and across historical stages involves the relative sequence of the composing elements, absence or presence of connectors, their synthetic vs. analytic nature, and the degree of grammatical marking. A number of ‘deviant’ numeral formations raise the question of borrowing vs independent development, such as vigesimals (featuring a base ‘20’ instead ‘10’) in certain Romance varieties and the teen and decad formations in Romanian. The other types of numeral in Romance, which derive from the unmarked and consistent cardinals, feature a significantly higher degree of formal complexity and variation involving Latin formants and tend toward analyticity. While Latin features prominently in the Romance counting system as a source of numeral formations and suffixes, it is only in Romance that the inherited decimal system reached its full potential, illustrating its increasing prominence, reflected not only in numerals, but also in language acquisition, sign language, and post-Revolution measuring systems. -
Hagoort, P. (2022). Reasoning and the brain. In M. Stokhof, & K. Stenning (
Eds. ), Rules, regularities, randomness. Festschrift for Michiel van Lambalgen (pp. 83-85). Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation. -
Levshina, N. (2022). Comparing Bayesian and frequentist models of language variation: The case of help + (to) Infinitive. In O. Schützler, & J. Schlüter (
Eds. ), Data and methods in corpus linguistics – Comparative Approaches (pp. 224-258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Hagoort, P. (2007). The memory, unification, and control (MUC) model of language. In T. Sakamoto (
Ed. ), Communicating skills of intention (pp. 259-291). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. -
Hagoort, P. (2007). The memory, unification, and control (MUC) model of language. In A. S. Meyer, L. Wheeldon, & A. Krott (
Eds. ), Automaticity and control in language processing (pp. 243-270). Hove: Psychology Press. -
Kelly, S. D., & Ozyurek, A. (
Eds. ). (2007). Gesture, language, and brain [Special Issue]. Brain and Language, 101(3). -
Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (2007). How does spoken language shape iconic gestures? In S. Duncan, J. Cassel, & E. Levy (
Eds. ), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language (pp. 67-74). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Ozyurek, A. (2007). Processing of multi-modal semantic information: Insights from cross-linguistic comparisons and neurophysiological recordings. In T. Sakamoto (
Ed. ), Communicating skills of intention (pp. 131-142). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing. -
De Ruiter, J. P., Noordzij, M. L., Newman-Norlund, S., Hagoort, P., & Toni, I. (2007). On the origins of intentions. In P. Haggard, Y. Rossetti, & M. Kawato (
Eds. ), Sensorimotor foundations of higher cognition (pp. 593-610). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Van Alphen, P. M. (2007). Prevoicing in Dutch initial plosives: Production, perception, and word recognition. In J. van de Weijer, & E. van der Torre (
Eds. ), Voicing in Dutch (pp. 99-124). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Abstract
Prevoicing is the presence of vocal fold vibration during the closure of initial voiced plosives (negative VOT). The presence or absence of prevoicing is generally used to describe the voicing distinction in Dutch initial plosives. However, a phonetic study showed that prevoicing is frequently absent in Dutch. This article discusses the role of prevoicing in the production and perception of Dutch plosives. Furthermore, two cross-modal priming experiments are presented that examined the effect of prevoicing variation on word recognition. Both experiments showed no difference between primes with 12, 6 or 0 periods of prevoicing, even though a third experiment indicated that listeners could discriminate these words. These results are discussed in light of another priming experiment that did show an effect of the absence of prevoicing, but only when primes had a voiceless word competitor. Phonetic detail appears to influence lexical access only when it helps to distinguish between lexical candidates.
Share this page