Publications

Displaying 201 - 222 of 222
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2010). Presupposition. In A. Barber, & R. J. Stainton (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of philosophy of language and linguistics (pp. 589-596). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Sjerps, M. J., & Chang, E. F. (2019). The cortical processing of speech sounds in the temporal lobe. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brain to behavior (pp. 361-379). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Skiba, R. (1989). Funktionale Beschreibung von Lernervarietäten: Das Berliner Projekt P-MoLL. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Sprechen und Hören: Akte des 23. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Berlin (pp. 181-191). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Skiba, R. (2010). Polnisch. In S. Colombo-Scheffold, P. Fenn, S. Jeuk, & J. Schäfer (Eds.), Ausländisch für Deutsche. Sprachen der Kinder - Sprachen im Klassenzimmer (2. korrigierte und erweiterte Auflage, pp. 165-176). Freiburg: Fillibach.
  • Spapé, M., Verdonschot, R. G., & Van Steenbergen, H. (2019). The E-Primer: An introduction to creating psychological experiments in E-Prime® (2nd ed. updated for E-Prime 3). Leiden: Leiden University Press.

    Abstract

    E-Prime® is the leading software suite by Psychology Software Tools for designing and running Psychology lab experiments. The E-Primer is the perfect accompanying guide: It provides all the necessary knowledge to make E-Prime accessible to everyone. You can learn the tools of Psychological science by following the E-Primer through a series of entertaining, step-by-step recipes that recreate classic experiments. The updated E-Primer expands its proven combination of simple explanations, interesting tutorials and fun exercises, and makes even the novice student quickly confident to create their dream experiment.
  • Speed, L. J., O'Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.). (2019). Perception Metaphors. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    Metaphor allows us to think and talk about one thing in terms of another, ratcheting up our cognitive and expressive capacity. It gives us concrete terms for abstract phenomena, for example, ideas become things we can grasp or let go of. Perceptual experience—characterised as physical and relatively concrete—should be an ideal source domain in metaphor, and a less likely target. But is this the case across diverse languages? And are some sensory modalities perhaps more concrete than others? This volume presents critical new data on perception metaphors from over 40 languages, including many which are under-studied. Aside from the wealth of data from diverse languages—modern and historical; spoken and signed—a variety of methods (e.g., natural language corpora, experimental) and theoretical approaches are brought together. This collection highlights how perception metaphor can offer both a bedrock of common experience and a source of continuing innovation in human communication
  • Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages [Special Issue]. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10). doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001.
  • Terrill, A. (2010). Complex predicates and complex clauses in Lavukaleve. In J. Bowden, N. P. Himmelman, & M. Ross (Eds.), A journey through Austronesian and Papuan linguistic and cultural space: Papers in honour of Andrew K. Pawley (pp. 499-512). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  • Thomaz, A. L., Lieven, E., Cakmak, M., Chai, J. Y., Garrod, S., Gray, W. D., Levinson, S. C., Paiva, A., & Russwinkel, N. (2019). Interaction for task instruction and learning. In K. A. Gluck, & J. E. Laird (Eds.), Interactive task learning: Humans, robots, and agents acquiring new tasks through natural interactions (pp. 91-110). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Trabasso, T., & Ozyurek, A. (1997). Communicating evaluation in narrative understanding. In T. Givon (Ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (pp. 268-302). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
  • Van Berkum, J. J. A., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2019). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on language comprehension in context. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brain to behavior (pp. 429-442). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Van Wijk, C., & Kempen, G. (1982). Kost zinsbouw echt tijd? In R. Stuip, & W. Zwanenberg (Eds.), Handelingen van het zevenendertigste Nederlands Filologencongres (pp. 223-231). Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2010). Role and reference grammar as a framework for linguistic analysis. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 703-738). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Vernes, S. C. (2019). Neuromolecular approaches to the study of language. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brain to behavior (pp. 577-593). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Völlmin, S., Amha, A., Rapold, C. J., & Zaugg-Coretti, S. (Eds.). (2010). Converbs, medial verbs, clause chaining and related issues. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
  • Von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (1989). Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In R. Dietrich, & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 39-76). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Weber, A., Crocker, M., & Knoeferle, P. (2010). Conflicting constraints in resource-adaptive language comprehension. In M. W. Crocker, & J. Siekmann (Eds.), Resource-adaptive cognitive processes (pp. 119-141). New York: Springer.

    Abstract

    The primary goal of psycholinguistic research is to understand the architectures and mechanisms that underlie human language comprehension and production. This entails an understanding of how linguistic knowledge is represented and organized in the brain and a theory of how that knowledge is accessed when we use language. Research has traditionally emphasized purely linguistic aspects of on-line comprehension, such as the influence of lexical, syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints, and their tim -course. It has become increasingly clear, however, that nonlinguistic information, such as the visual environment, are also actively exploited by situated language comprehenders.
  • Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2010). Cortical motor contributions to language understanding. In L. Hermer (Ed.), Reciprocal interactions among early sensory and motor areas and higher cognitive networks (pp. 51-72). Kerala, India: Research Signpost Press.

    Abstract

    Here we review evidence from cognitive neuroscience for a tight relation between language and action in the brain. We focus on two types of relation between language and action. First, we investigate whether the perception of speech and speech sounds leads to activation of parts of the cortical motor system also involved in speech production. Second, we evaluate whether understanding action-related language involves the activation of parts of the motor system. We conclude that whereas there is considerable evidence that understanding language can involve parts of our motor cortex, this relation is best thought of as inherently flexible. As we explain, the exact nature of the input as well as the intention with which language is perceived influences whether and how motor cortex plays a role in language processing.
  • Wittenburg, P., & Trilsbeek, P. (2010). Digital archiving - a necessity in documentary linguistics. In G. Senft (Ed.), Endangered Austronesian and Australian Aboriginal languages: Essays on language documentation, archiving and revitalization (pp. 111-136). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  • Zhang, Y., Chen, C.-h., & Yu, C. (2019). Mechanisms of cross-situational learning: Behavioral and computational evidence. In Advances in Child Development and Behavior; vol. 56 (pp. 37-63).

    Abstract

    Word learning happens in everyday contexts with many words and many potential referents for those words in view at the same time. It is challenging for young learners to find the correct referent upon hearing an unknown word at the moment. This problem of referential uncertainty has been deemed as the crux of early word learning (Quine, 1960). Recent empirical and computational studies have found support for a statistical solution to the problem termed cross-situational learning. Cross-situational learning allows learners to acquire word meanings across multiple exposures, despite each individual exposure is referentially uncertain. Recent empirical research shows that infants, children and adults rely on cross-situational learning to learn new words (Smith & Yu, 2008; Suanda, Mugwanya, & Namy, 2014; Yu & Smith, 2007). However, researchers have found evidence supporting two very different theoretical accounts of learning mechanisms: Hypothesis Testing (Gleitman, Cassidy, Nappa, Papafragou, & Trueswell, 2005; Markman, 1992) and Associative Learning (Frank, Goodman, & Tenenbaum, 2009; Yu & Smith, 2007). Hypothesis Testing is generally characterized as a form of learning in which a coherent hypothesis regarding a specific word-object mapping is formed often in conceptually constrained ways. The hypothesis will then be either accepted or rejected with additional evidence. However, proponents of the Associative Learning framework often characterize learning as aggregating information over time through implicit associative mechanisms. A learner acquires the meaning of a word when the association between the word and the referent becomes relatively strong. In this chapter, we consider these two psychological theories in the context of cross-situational word-referent learning. By reviewing recent empirical and cognitive modeling studies, our goal is to deepen our understanding of the underlying word learning mechanisms by examining and comparing the two theoretical learning accounts.
  • Zuidema, W., & Fitz, H. (2019). Key issues and future directions: Models of human language and speech processing. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brain to behavior (pp. 353-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Share this page