Publications

Displaying 201 - 205 of 205
  • Van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). The time course of grammatical and phonological processing during speaking: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(6), 649-676. doi:10.1023/A:1023221028150.

    Abstract

    Motor-related brain potentials were used to examine the time course of grammatical and phonological processes during noun phrase production in Dutch. In the experiments, participants named colored pictures using a no-determiner noun phrase. On half of the trials a syntactic-phonological classification task had to be performed before naming. Depending on the outcome of the classifications, a left or a right push-button response was given (go trials), or no push-button response was given (no-go trials). Lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) were derived to test whether syntactic and phonological information affected the motor system at separate moments in time. The results showed that when syntactic information determined the response-hand decision, an LRP developed on no-go trials. However, no such effect was observed when phonological information determined response hand. On the basis of the data, it can be estimated that an additional period of at least 40 ms is needed to retrieve a word's initial phoneme once its lemma has been retrieved. These results provide evidence for the view that during speaking, grammatical processing precedes phonological processing in time.
  • Vigliocco, G., Lauer, M., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic and syntactic forces in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 46-58. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.46.

    Abstract

    Three experiments investigated semantic and syntactic effects in the production of phrases in Dutch. Bilingual participants were presented with English nouns and were asked to produce an adjective + noun phrase in Dutch including the translation of the noun. In 2 experiments, the authors blocked items by either semantic category or grammatical gender. Participants performed the task slower when the target nouns were of the same semantic category than when they were from different categories and faster when the target nouns had the same gender than when they had different genders. In a final experiment, both manipulations were crossed. The authors replicated the results of the first 2 experiments, and no interaction was found. These findings suggest a feedforward flow of activation between lexico-semantic and lexico-syntactic information.
  • Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cognition, 85, B61-B69. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00107-5.

    Abstract

    Graded interference effects were tested in a naming task, in parallel for objects and actions. Participants named either object or action pictures presented in the context of other pictures (blocks) that were either semantically very similar, or somewhat semantically similar or semantically dissimilar. We found that naming latencies for both object and action words were modulated by the semantic similarity between the exemplars in each block, providing evidence in both domains of graded semantic effects.
  • Vonk, W. (2002). Zin in tekst. Psycholinguïstisch onderzoek naar het begrijpen van taal. Gramma/TTT, 8, 267-284.
  • Weber, A. (2002). Assimilation violation and spoken-language processing: A supplementary report. Language and Speech, 45, 37-46. doi:10.1177/00238309020450010201.

    Abstract

    Previous studies have shown that spoken-language processing is inhibited by violation of obligatory regressive assimilation. Weber (2001) replicated this inhibitory effect in a phoneme-monitoring study examining regressive place assimilation of nasals, but found facilitation for violation of progressive assimilation. German listeners detected the velar fricative [x] more quickly when fricative assimilation was violated (e.g., *[bIxt] or *[blInx@n]) than when no violation occurred (e.g., [baxt] or [blu:x@n]). It was argued that a combination of two factors caused facilitation:(1) progressive assimilation creates different restrictions for the monitoring target than regressive assimilation does, and (2) the sequences violating assimilation (e.g., *[Ix]) are novel for German listeners and therefore facilitate fricative detection (novel popout). The present study tested progressive assimilation violation in non-novel sequences using the palatal fricative [C]. Stimuli either violated fricative assimilation (e.g., *[ba:C@l ]) or did not (e.g., [bi: C@l ]). This manipulation does not create novel sequences: sequences like *[a:C] can occur across word boundaries, while *[Ix] cannot. No facilitation was found. However, violation also did not significantly inhibit processing. The results confirm that facilitation depends on the combination of progressive assimilation with novelty of the sequence.

Share this page