Publications

Displaying 201 - 209 of 209
  • Van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1998). Brain activitity during speaking: From syntax to phonology in 40 milliseconds. Science, 280, 572-574.

    Abstract

    In normal conversation, speakers translate thoughts into words at high speed. To enable this speed, the retrieval of distinct types of linguistic knowledge has to be orchestrated with millisecond precision. The nature of this orchestration is still largely unknown. This report presents dynamic measures of the real-time activation of two basic types of linguistic knowledge, syntax and phonology. Electrophysiological data demonstrate that during noun-phrase production speakers retrieve the syntactic gender of a noun before its abstract phonological properties. This two-step process operates at high speed: the data show that phonological information is already available 40 milliseconds after syntactic properties have been retrieved.
  • Van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1998). Brain activity during speaking: From syntax to phonology in 40 milliseconds. Science, 280(5363), 572-574. doi:10.1126/science.280.5363.572.
  • Van Turennout, M. (2002). Het benoemen van een object veroorzaakt langdurige veranderingen in het brein. Neuropraxis, 6(3), 77-81.
  • van Geenhoven, V. (2002). Raised Possessors and Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20(4), 759-821.

    Abstract

    This paper addresses the question of whether noun incorporation is a syntactically base-generated or a syntactically derived construction. Focusing on so-called 'raised possessors' in West Greenlandic noun incorporating constructions and presenting some new data, I discuss some problems that arise if we use the derivational framework of Bittner and Hale (1996) to analyze them. I show that if we make the predication relations in noun incorporating constructions overt in their syntax and if we adopt a dynamic approach to semantics, a base-generated syntactic input enriched with a coindexation system is all that we need to arrive at an adequate semantic interpretation of these constructions.
  • Van de Geer, J. P., Levelt, W. J. M., & Plomp, R. (1962). The connotation of musical consonance. Acta Psychologica, 20, 308-319.

    Abstract

    As a preliminary to further research on musical consonance an explanatory investigation was made on the different modes of judgment of musical intervals. This was done by way of a semantic differential. Subjects rated 23 intervals against 10 scales. In a factor analysis three factors appeared: pitch, evaluation and fusion. The relation between these factors and some physical characteristics has been investigated. The scale consonant-dissonant showed to be purely evaluative (in opposition to Stumpf's theory). This evaluative connotation is not in accordance with the musicological meaning of consonance. Suggestions to account for this difference have been given.
  • 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