Presentations

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
  • Peeters, D., Ozyurek, A., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Behavioral and neural correlates of deictic reference. Poster presented at the 18th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing [AMLaP 2012], Riva del Garda, Italy.
  • Peeters, D., Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (2012). Cognate processing in L1 and L2 sentence context: A first ERP study. Poster presented at 25th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York City, NY.
  • Peeters, D., Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (2012). Processing the same words in different languages: An ERP study. Poster presented at Psycholinguistics in Flanders [PiF2012], Berg en Dal, The Netherlands.
  • Peeters, D., Ozyurek, A., & Hagoort, P. (2012). The comprehension of exophoric reference: An ERP study. Poster presented at the Fourth Annual Neurobiology of Language Conference (NLC), San Sebastian, Spain.

    Abstract

    An important property of language is that it can be used exophorically, for instance in referring to entities in the extra-linguistic context of a conversation using demonstratives such as “this” and “that”. Despite large-scale cross-linguistic descriptions of demonstrative systems, the mechanisms underlying the comprehension of such referential acts are poorly understood. Therefore, we investigated the neural mechanisms underlying demonstrative comprehension in situated contexts. Twenty-three participants were presented on a computer screen with pictures containing a speaker and two similar objects. One of the objects was close to the speaker, whereas the other was either distal from the speaker but optically close to the participant (“sagittal orientation”), or distal from both (“lateral orientation”). The speaker pointed to one object, and participants heard sentences spoken by the speaker containing a proximal (“this”) or distal (“that”) demonstrative, and a correct or incorrect noun-label (i.e., a semantic violation). EEG was recorded continuously and time-locked to the onset of demonstratives and nouns. Semantic violations on the noun-label yielded a significant, wide-spread N400 effect, regardless of the objects’ orientation. Comparing the comprehension of proximal to distal demonstratives in the sagittal orientation yielded a similar N400 effect, both for the close and the far referent. Interestingly, no demonstrative effect was found when objects were oriented laterally. Our findings suggest a similar time-course for demonstrative and noun-label processing. However, the comprehension of demonstratives depends on the spatial orientation of potential referents, whereas noun-label comprehension does not. These findings reveal new insights about the mechanisms underlying everyday demonstrative comprehension.
  • Peeters, D., & Ozyurek, A. (2012). The role of contextual factors in the use of demonstratives: Differences between Turkish and Dutch. Talk presented at the 6th Lodz Symposium: New Developments in Linguistic Pragmatics. Lodz, Poland. 2012-05-26 - 2012-05-28.

    Abstract

    An important feature of language is that it enables human beings to refer to entities, actions and events in the external world. In everyday interaction, one can refer to concrete entities in the extra-linguistic physical environment of a conversation by using demonstratives such as this and that. Traditionally, the choice of which demonstrative to use has been explained in terms of the distance of the referent [1]. In contrast, recent observational studies in different languages have suggested that factors such as joint attention also play an important role in demonstrative choice [2][3]. These claims have never been tested in a controlled setting and across different languages. There-fore, we tested demonstrative choice in a controlled elicitation task in two languages that previously have only been studied observational-ly: Turkish and Dutch. In our study, twenty-nine Turkish and twenty-four Dutch partic-ipants were presented with pictures including a speaker, an address-ee and an object (the referent). They were asked which demonstra-tive they would use in the depicted situations. Besides the distance of the referent, we manipulated the addressee’s focus of visual atten-tion, the presence of a pointing gesture, and the sentence type. A re-peated measures analysis of variance showed that, in addition to the distance of the referent, the focus of attention of the addressee on the referent and the type of sentence in which a demonstrative was used, influenced demonstrative choice in Turkish. In Dutch, only the dis-tance of the referent and the sentence type influenced demonstrative choice. Our cross-linguistic findings show that in different languages, people take into account both similar and different aspects of triadic situations to select a demonstrative. These findings reject descrip-tions of demonstrative systems that explain demonstrative choice in terms of one single variable, such as distance. The controlled study of referring acts in triadic situations is a valuable extension to observa-tional research, in that it gives us the possibility to look more specifi-cally into the interplay between language, attention, and other con-textual factors influencing how people refer to entities in the world References: [1] Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2] Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17:4. 463–89. [3] Küntay, A. C. & Özyürek, A. (2006). Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: what do language specific strategies in Turkish reveal? Journal of Child Language 33. 303–320.
  • Peeters, D., & Ozyurek, A. (2012). The role of contextual factors in the use of demonstratives: Differences between Turkish and Dutch. Poster presented at The IMPRS Relations in Relativity Workshop, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Share this page