Publications

Displaying 101 - 111 of 111
  • Trilsbeek, P., Broeder, D., Elbers, W., & Moreira, A. (2015). A sustainable archiving software solution for The Language Archive. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation (ICLDC).
  • Ünal, E., & Papafragou, A. (2013). Linguistic and conceptual representations of inference as a knowledge source. In S. Baiz, N. Goldman, & R. Hawkes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 37) (pp. 433-443). Boston: Cascadilla Press.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1987). Aspects of the interaction of syntax and pragmatics: Discourse coreference mechanisms and the typology of grammatical systems. In M. Bertuccelli Papi, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 513-531). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1987). Pragmatics, island phenomena, and linguistic competence. In A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley, & K.-E. McCullough (Eds.), CLS 22. Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory (pp. 223-233). Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Van Putten, S. (2013). The meaning of the Avatime additive particle tsye. In M. Balbach, L. Benz, S. Genzel, M. Grubic, A. Renans, S. Schalowski, M. Stegenwallner, & A. Zeldes (Eds.), Information structure: Empirical perspectives on theory (pp. 55-74). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-64804.
  • Verdonschot, R. G., & Tamaoka, K. (Eds.). (2015). The production of speech sounds across languages [Special Issue]. Japanese Psychological Research, 57(1).
  • Verhoef, T., Roberts, S. G., & Dingemanse, M. (2015). Emergence of systematic iconicity: Transmission, interaction and analogy. In D. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2015) (pp. 2481-2486). Austin, Tx: Cognitive Science Society.

    Abstract

    Languages combine arbitrary and iconic signals. How do iconic signals emerge and when do they persist? We present an experimental study of the role of iconicity in the emergence of structure in an artificial language. Using an iterated communication game in which we control the signalling medium as well as the meaning space, we study the evolution of communicative signals in transmission chains. This sheds light on how affordances of the communication medium shape and constrain the mappability and transmissibility of form-meaning pairs. We find that iconic signals can form the building blocks for wider compositional patterns
  • von Stutterheim, C., & Flecken, M. (Eds.). (2013). Principles of information organization in L2 discourse [Special Issue]. International Review of Applied linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 51(2).
  • Wanrooij, K., De Vos, J., & Boersma, P. (2015). Distributional vowel training may not be effective for Dutch adults. In Scottish consortium for ICPhS 2015, M. Wolters, J. Livingstone, B. Beattie, R. Smith, M. MacMahon, J. Stuart-Smith, & J. Scobbie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2015). Glasgow: University of Glasgow.

    Abstract

    Distributional vowel training for adults has been reported as “effective” for Spanish and Bulgarian learners of Dutch vowels, in studies using a behavioural task. A recent study did not yield a similar clear learning effect for Dutch learners of the English vowel contrast /æ/~/ε/, as measured with event-related potentials (ERPs). The present study aimed to examine the possibility that the latter result was related to the method. As in the ERP study, we tested whether distributional training improved Dutch adult learners’ perception of English /æ/~/ε/. However, we measured behaviour instead of ERPs, in a design identical to that used in the previous studies with Spanish learners. The results do not support an effect of distributional training and thus “replicate” the ERP study. We conclude that it remains unclear whether distributional vowel training is effective for Dutch adults.
  • Zhang, Y., Yurovsky, D., & Yu, C. (2015). Statistical word learning is a continuous process: Evidence from the human simulation paradigm. In D. Noelle, R. Dale, A. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2015) (pp. 2422-2427). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.

    Abstract

    In the word-learning domain, both adults and young children are able to find the correct referent of a word from highly ambiguous contexts that involve many words and objects by computing distributional statistics across the co-occurrences of words and referents at multiple naming moments (Yu & Smith, 2007; Smith & Yu, 2008). However, there is still debate regarding how learners accumulate distributional information to learn object labels in natural learning environments, and what underlying learning mechanism learners are most likely to adopt. Using the Human Simulation Paradigm (Gillette, Gleitman, Gleitman & Lederer, 1999), we found that participants’ learning performance gradually improved and that their ability to remember and carry over partial knowledge from past learning instances facilitated subsequent learning. These results support the statistical learning model that word learning is a continuous process.
  • De Zubicaray, G. I., Acheson, D. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (Eds.). (2013). Mind what you say - general and specific mechanisms for monitoring in speech production [Research topic] [Special Issue]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Retrieved from http://www.frontiersin.org/human_neuroscience/researchtopics/mind_what_you_say_-_general_an/1197.

    Abstract

    Psycholinguistic research has typically portrayed speech production as a relatively automatic process. This is because when errors are made, they occur as seldom as one in every thousand words we utter. However, it has long been recognised that we need some form of control over what we are currently saying and what we plan to say. This capacity to both monitor our inner speech and self-correct our speech output has often been assumed to be a property of the language comprehension system. More recently, it has been demonstrated that speech production benefits from interfacing with more general cognitive processes such as selective attention, short-term memory (STM) and online response monitoring to resolve potential conflict and successfully produce the output of a verbal plan. The conditions and levels of representation according to which these more general planning, monitoring and control processes are engaged during speech production remain poorly understood. Moreover, there remains a paucity of information about their neural substrates, despite some of the first evidence of more general monitoring having come from electrophysiological studies of error related negativities (ERNs). While aphasic speech errors continue to be a rich source of information, there has been comparatively little research focus on instances of speech repair. The purpose of this Frontiers Research Topic is to provide a forum for researchers to contribute investigations employing behavioural, neuropsychological, electrophysiological, neuroimaging and virtual lesioning techniques. In addition, while the focus of the research topic is on novel findings, we welcome submission of computational simulations, review articles and methods papers.

Share this page