Displaying 1 - 23 of 23
-
Barthel, M., Sauppe, S., Levinson, S. C., & Meyer, A. S. (2016). The timing of utterance planning in task-oriented dialogue: Evidence from a novel list-completion paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1858. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01858.
Abstract
In conversation, interlocutors rarely leave long gaps between turns, suggesting that next speak- ers begin to plan their turns while listening to the previous speaker. The present experiment used analyses of speech onset latencies and eye-movements in a task-oriented dialogue paradigm to investigate when speakers start planning their response. Adult German participants heard a confederate describe sets of objects in utterances that either ended in a noun (e.g. Ich habe eine Tür und ein Fahrrad (‘I have a door and a bicycle’)) or a verb form (Ich habe eine Tür und ein Fahrrad besorgt (‘I have gotten a door and a bicycle’)), while the presence or absence of the final verb either was or was not predictable from the preceding sentence structure. In response, participants had to name any unnamed objects they could see in their own display in utterances such as Ich habe ein Ei (‘I have an egg’). The main question was when participants started to plan their response. The results are consistent with the view that speakers begin to plan their turn as soon as sufficient information is available to do so, irrespective of further incoming words. -
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C. (
Eds. ). (2016). Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction. Lausanne: Frontiers Media. doi:10.3389/978-2-88919-825-2.Abstract
The core use of language is in face-to-face conversation. This is characterized by rapid turn-taking. This turn-taking poses a number central puzzles for the psychology of language.
Consider, for example, that in large corpora the gap between turns is on the order of 100 to 300 ms, but the latencies involved in language production require minimally between 600ms (for a single word) or 1500 ms (for as simple sentence). This implies that participants in conversation are predicting the ends of the incoming turn and preparing in advance. But how is this done? What aspects of this prediction are done when? What happens when the prediction is wrong? What stops participants coming in too early? If the system is running on prediction, why is there consistently a mode of 100 to 300 ms in response time?
The timing puzzle raises further puzzles: it seems that comprehension must run parallel with the preparation for production, but it has been presumed that there are strict cognitive limitations on more than one central process running at a time. How is this bottleneck overcome? Far from being 'easy' as some psychologists have suggested, conversation may be one of the most demanding cognitive tasks in our everyday lives. Further questions naturally arise: how do children learn to master this demanding task, and what is the developmental trajectory in this domain?
Research shows that aspects of turn-taking such as its timing are remarkably stable across languages and cultures, but the word order of languages varies enormously. How then does prediction of the incoming turn work when the verb (often the informational nugget in a clause) is at the end? Conversely, how can production work fast enough in languages that have the verb at the beginning, thereby requiring early planning of the whole clause? What happens when one changes modality, as in sign languages -- with the loss of channel constraints is turn-taking much freer? And what about face-to-face communication amongst hearing individuals -- do gestures, gaze, and other body behaviors facilitate turn-taking? One can also ask the phylogenetic question: how did such a system evolve? There seem to be parallels (analogies) in duetting bird species, and in a variety of monkey species, but there is little evidence of anything like this among the great apes.
All this constitutes a neglected set of problems at the heart of the psychology of language and of the language sciences. This research topic welcomes contributions from right across the board, for example from psycholinguists, developmental psychologists, students of dialogue and conversation analysis, linguists interested in the use of language, phoneticians, corpus analysts and comparative ethologists or psychologists. We welcome contributions of all sorts, for example original research papers, opinion pieces, and reviews of work in subfields that may not be fully understood in other subfields. -
Levinson, S. C. (2016). “Process and perish” or multiple buffers with push-down stacks? [Commentary on Christiansen & Slater]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39: e81. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15000862.
Abstract
This commentary raises two issues: (1) Language processing is hastened not only by internal pressures but also externally by turntaking in language use; (2) the theory requires nested levels of processing, but linguistic levels do not fully nest; further, it would seem to require multiple memory buffers, otherwise there’s no obvious treatment for discontinuous structures, or for verbatim recall. -
Levinson, S. C. (2016). Language and mind: Let's get the issues straight! In S. D. Blum (
Ed. ), Making sense of language: Readings in culture and communication [3rd ed.] (pp. 68-80). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Levinson, S. C. (2016). The countable singulare tantum. In A. Reuneker, R. Boogaart, & S. Lensink (
Eds. ), Aries netwerk: Een constructicon (pp. 145-146). Leiden: Leiden University. -
Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication, origins, and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6-14. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010.
Abstract
Most language usage is interactive, involving rapid turn-taking. The turn-taking system has a number of striking properties: turns are short and responses are remarkably rapid, but turns are of varying length and often of very complex construction such that the underlying cognitive processing is highly compressed. Although neglected in cognitive science, the system has deep implications for language processing and acquisition that are only now becoming clear. Appearing earlier in ontogeny than linguistic competence, it is also found across all the major primate clades. This suggests a possible phylogenetic continuity, which may provide key insights into language evolution. -
Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. C. (
Eds. ). (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Abstract
Recent years have seen a revolution in our knowledge of how children learn to think and speak. In this volume, leading scholars from these rapidly evolving fields of research examine the relationship between child language acquisition and cognitive development. At first sight, advances in the two areas seem to have moved in opposing directions: the study of language acquisition has been especially concerned with diversity, explaining how children learn languages of widely different types, while the study of cognitive development has focused on uniformity, clarifying how children build on fundamental, presumably universal concepts. This book brings these two vital strands of investigation into close dialogue, suggesting a synthesis in which the process of language acquisition may interact with early cognitive development. It provides empirical contributions based on a variety of languages, populations and ages, and theoretical discussions that cut across the disciplines of psychology, linguistics and anthropology. -
Enfield, N. J., Levinson, S. C., & Meira, S. (2001). Recognitional deixis. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 78-81). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874641.Abstract
“Recognitional” words and constructions enshrine our systematic reliance on shared knowledge in dedicated morphological forms and usage patterns. For example, English has a large range of terms for use when a speaker cannot locate the word or name for something or someone (e.g., whatsit, what’s-his-name), but thinks that the interlocutor knows, or can easily work out, what the speaker is talking about. This task aims to identify and investigate these kinds of expressions in the research language, including their grammaticalised status, meaning, distribution, and productivity. The task consists of a questionnaire with examples of relevant hypothetical scenarios that can be used in eliciting the relevant terms. The researcher is then encouraged to pursue further questions in regard to these items. -
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Motion Verb Stimulus (Moverb) version 2. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 9-13). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513706.Abstract
How do languages express ideas of movement, and how do they package different components of this domain, such as manner and path of motion? This task uses one large set of stimuli to gain knowledge of certain key aspects of motion verb meanings in the target language, and expands the investigation beyond simple verbs (e.g., go) to include the semantics of motion predications complete with adjuncts (e.g., go across something). Consultants are asked to view and briefly describe 96 animations of a few seconds each. The task is designed to get linguistic elicitations of motion predications under contrastive comparison with other animations in the same set. Unlike earlier tasks, the stimuli focus on inanimate moving items or “figures” (in this case, a ball).Additional information
2001_Motion_verb_stimulus_version_2.zip -
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Covariation between spatial language and cognition. In M. Bowerman, & S. C. Levinson (
Eds. ), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 566-588). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (2001). Demonstratives in context: Comparative handicrafts. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 52-54). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874663.Abstract
Demonstratives (e.g., words such as this and that in English) pivot on relationships between the item being talked about, and features of the speech act situation (e.g., where the speaker and addressee are standing or looking). However, they are only rarely investigated multi-modally, in natural language contexts. This task is designed to build a video corpus of cross-linguistically comparable discourse data for the study of “deixis in action”, while simultaneously supporting the investigation of joint attention as a factor in speaker selection of demonstratives. In the task, two or more speakers are asked to discuss and evaluate a group of similar items (e.g., examples of local handicrafts, tools, produce) that are placed within a relatively defined space (e.g., on a table). The task can additionally provide material for comparison of pointing gesture practices. -
Levinson, S. C., Bohnemeyer, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). “Time and space” questionnaire for “space in thinking” subproject. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 14-20). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Abstract
This entry contains: 1. An invitation to think about to what extent the grammar of space and time share lexical and morphosyntactic resources − the suggestions here are only prompts, since it would take a long questionnaire to fully explore this; 2. A suggestion about how to collect gestural data that might show us to what extent the spatial and temporal domains, have a psychological continuity. This is really the goal − but you need to do the linguistic work first or in addition. The goal of this task is to explore the extent to which time is conceptualised on a spatial basis.Additional information
http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/2001/time-and-space-questionnaire-2/ -
Levinson, S. C., & Enfield, N. J. (
Eds. ). (2001). Manual for the field season 2001. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Additional information
http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/2001/ -
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Maxim. In S. Duranti (
Ed. ), Key terms in language and culture (pp. 139-142). Oxford: Blackwell. -
Levinson, S. C., Enfield, N. J., & Senft, G. (2001). Kinship domain for 'space in thinking' subproject. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 85-88). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874655. -
Levinson, S. C., & Wittenburg, P. (2001). Language as cultural heritage - Promoting research and public awareness on the Internet. In J. Renn (
Ed. ), ECHO - An Infrastructure to Bring European Cultural Heritage Online (pp. 104-111). Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Abstract
The ECHO proposal aims to bring to life the cultural heritage of Europe, through internet technology that encourages collaboration across the Humanities disciplines which interpret it – at the same time making all this scholarship accessible to the citizens of Europe. An essential part of the cultural heritage of Europe is the diverse set of languages used on the continent, in their historical, literary and spoken forms. Amongst these are the ‘hidden languages’ used by minorities but of wide interest to the general public. We take the 18 Sign Languages of the EEC – the natural languages of the deaf - as an example. Little comparative information about these is available, despite their special scientific importance, the widespread public interest and the policy implications. We propose a research project on these languages based on placing fully annotated digitized moving images of each of these languages on the internet. This requires significant development of multi-media technology which would allow distributed annotation of a central corpus, together with the development of special search techniques. The technology would have widespread application to all cultural performances recorded as sound plus moving images. Such a project captures in microcosm the essence of the ECHO proposal: cultural heritage is nothing without the humanities research which contextualizes and gives it comparative assessment; by marrying information technology to humanities research, we can bring these materials to a wider public while simultaneously boosting Europe as a research area. -
Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). Locally-anchored narrative. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 147). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874660.Abstract
As for 'Locally-anchored spatial gestures task, version 2', a major goal of this task is to elicit locally-anchored spatial gestures across different cultures. “Locally-anchored spatial gestures” are gestures that are roughly oriented to the actual geographical direction of referents. Rather than set up an interview situation, this task involves recording informal, animated narrative delivered to a native-speaker interlocutor. Locally-anchored gestures produced in such narrative are roughly comparable to those collected in the interview task. The data collected can also be used to investigate a wide range of other topics. -
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Space: Linguistic expression. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (
Eds. ), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 22 (pp. 14749-14752). Oxford: Pergamon. -
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Place and space in the sculpture of Anthony Gormley - An anthropological perspective. In S. D. McElroy (
Ed. ), Some of the facts (pp. 68-109). St Ives: Tate Gallery. -
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Pragmatics. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (
Eds. ), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 17 (pp. 11948-11954). Oxford: Pergamon. -
Levinson, S. C., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). Preface and priorities. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 3). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Meira, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2001). Topological tasks: General introduction. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 29-51). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874665. -
Levinson, S. C. (1980). Speech act theory: The state of the art. Language teaching and linguistics: Abstracts, 5-24.
Abstract
Survey article
Share this page