Publications

Displaying 301 - 400 of 759
  • Kempen, G. (1988). De netwerker: Spin in het web of rat in een doolhof? In SURF in theorie en praktijk: Van personal tot supercomputer (pp. 59-61). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
  • Kempen, G. (1998). Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: In search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors [Commentory]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 29-30. doi:10.1017/S1366728998000066.

    Abstract

    When you compare the behavior of two different age groups which are trying to master the same sensori-motor or cognitive skill, you are likely to discover varying learning routes: different stages, different intervals between stages, or even different orderings of stages. Such heterogeneous learning trajectories may be caused by at least six different types of factors: (1) Initial state: the kinds and levels of skills the learners have available at the onset of the learning episode. (2) Learning mechanisms: rule-based, inductive, connectionist, parameter setting, and so on. (3) Input and feedback characteristics: learning stimuli, information about success and failure. (4) Information processing mechanisms: capacity limitations, attentional biases, response preferences. (5) Energetic variables: motivation, emotional reactions. (6) Final state: the fine-structure of kinds and levels of subskills at the end of the learning episode. This applies to language acquisition as well. First and second language learners probably differ on all six factors. Nevertheless, the debate between advocates and opponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis concerning L1 and L2 acquisition have looked almost exclusively at the first two factors. Those who believe that L1 learners have access to Universal Grammar whereas L2 learners rely on language processing strategies, postulate different learning mechanisms (UG parameter setting in L1, more general inductive strategies in L2 learning). Pienemann opposes this view and, based on his Processability Theory, argues that L1 and L2 learners start out from different initial states: they come to the grammar learning task with different structural hypotheses (SOV versus SVO as basic word order of German).
  • Kempen, G. (1985). Artificiële intelligentie: Bouw, benutting, beheersing. In W. Veldkamp (Ed.), Innovatie in perspectief (pp. 42-47). Vianen: Nixdorf Computer B.V.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). [Review of the book Explorations in cognition by D. Norman, D. Rumelhart and the LNR Research Group]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6(2), 184-186. doi:10.1007/BF01074377.
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (1998). A 'tree adjoining' grammar without adjoining: The case of scrambling in German. In Fourth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks (TAG+4).
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). Dutch and German verb clusters in performance grammar. In P. A. Seuren, & G. Kempen (Eds.), Verb constructions in German and Dutch (pp. 185-221). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). An artificial opposition between grammaticality and frequency: Comment on Bornkessel, Schlesewsky & Friederici (2002). Cognition, 90(2), 205-210 [Rectification on p. 215]. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00145-8.

    Abstract

    In a recent Cognition paper (Cognition 85 (2002) B21), Bornkessel, Schlesewsky, and Friederici report ERP data that they claim “show that online processing difficulties induced by word order variations in German cannot be attributed to the relative infrequency of the constructions in question, but rather appear to reflect the application of grammatical principles during parsing” (p. B21). In this commentary we demonstrate that the posited contrast between grammatical principles and construction (in)frequency as sources of parsing problems is artificial because it is based on factually incorrect assumptions about the grammar of German and on inaccurate corpus frequency data concerning the German constructions involved.
  • Kempen, G. (2003). Language generation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 362-364). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kempen, G., & De Vroomen, P. (Eds.). (1991). Informatiewetenschap 1991: Wetenschappelijke bijdragen aan de eerste STINFON-conferentie. Leiden: STINFON.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Man's sentence generator: Aspects of its control structure. In M. De Mey, R. Pinxten, M. Poriau, & E. Vandamme (Eds.), International workshop on the cognitive viewpoint. Ghent: University of Ghent, Communication & Cognition.
  • Kempen, G. (1986). Kunstmatige intelligentie en gezond verstand. In P. Hagoort, & R. Maessen (Eds.), Geest, computer, kunst (pp. 118-123). Utrecht: Stichting Grafiet.
  • Kempen, G., & Kolk, H. (1986). Het voortbrengen van normale en agrammatische taal. Van Horen Zeggen, 27(2), 36-40.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Onder woorden brengen: Psychologische aspecten van expressief taalgebruik [Inaugural lecture]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

    Abstract

    Rede, uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van lector in de taalpsychologie aan de Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen op Vrijdag 10 juni 1977
  • Kempen, G. (1985). Psychologie 2000. Toegepaste psychologie in de informatiemaatschappij. Computers in de psychologie, 13-21.
  • Kempen, G., & Takens, R. (Eds.). (1986). Psychologie, informatica en informatisering. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  • Kempen, G. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
  • Kempen, G., Schotel, H., & Pijls, J. (1985). Taaltechnologie en taalonderwijs. In J. Heene (Ed.), Onderwijs en informatietechnologie. Den Haag: Stichting voor Onderzoek van het Onderwijs (SVO).
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2002). Rethinking the architecture of human syntactic processing: The relationship between grammatical encoding and decoding. In Proceedings of the 35th Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. University of Potsdam.
  • Kempen, G. (1986). RIKS: Kennistechnologisch centrum voor bedrijfsleven en wetenschap. Informatie, 28, 122-125.
  • Kempen, G. (1988). Preface. Acta Psychologica, 69(3), 205-206. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(88)90032-7.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Wat is psycholinguistiek? In B. T. M. Tervoort (Ed.), Wetenschap en taal: Het verschijnsel taal van verschillende zijden benaderd (pp. 86-99 ). Muiderberg: Coutinho.
  • Kempen, G., & Maassen, B. (1977). The time course of conceptualizing and formulating processes during the production of simple sentences. In Proceedings of The Third Prague Conference on the Psychology of Human Learning and Development. Prague: Institute of Psychology.

    Abstract

    The psychological process of producing sentences includes conceptualization (selecting to-beexpressed conceptual content) and formulation (translating conceptual content into syntactic structures of a language). There is ample evidence, both intuitive and experimental, that the conceptualizing and formulating processes often proceed concurrently, not strictly serially. James Lindsley (Cognitive Psych.,1975, 7, 1-19; J.Psycholinguistic Res., 1976, 5, 331-354) has developed a concurrent model which proved succesful in an experimental situation where simple English Subject-Verb (SV) sentences such as “The boy is greeting”,”The girl is kicking” were produced as descriptions of pictures which showed actor and action. The measurements were reaction times defined as the interval between the moment a picture appeared on a screen and the onset of the vocal utterance by the speaker. Lindsley could show, among other things, that the formulation process for an SV sentence doesn’t start immediately after the actor of a picture (that is, the conceptual content underlying the surface Subject phrase) has been identified, but is somewhat delayed. The delay was needed, according to Lindsley, in order to prevent dysfluencies (hesitations) between surface Subject and verb. We replicated Lindsley’s data for Dutch. However, his model proved inadequate when we added Dutch Verb-Subject (VS) constructions which are obligatory in certain syntactic contexts but synonymous with their SV counterparts. A sentence production theory which is being developed by the first author is able to provide an accurate account of the data. The abovementioned delay is attributed to certain precautions the sentence generator has to take in case of SV but not of VS sentences. These precautions are related to the goal of attaining syntactic coherence of the utterance as a whole, not to the prevention of dysfluencies.
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). Word order scrambling as a consequence of incremental sentence production. In H. Härtl, & H. Tappe (Eds.), Mediating between concepts and grammar (pp. 141-164). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2002). English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses: Evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(6), 599-617. doi:10.1023/A:1021265021141.

    Abstract

    Children must possess some ability to process input in a meaningful manner to acquire language. The present study reports on data from an experiment investigating 3- to 5-year-old English-speaking children's understanding of restrictive relative clauses manipulated for embeddedness and focus. The results of the study showed that English-speaking children acquire right-branching before center-embedded structures. Comparisons made with data from Portuguese-speaking children suggest general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development, and with respect to English, a “clause expansion” approach to processing in development
  • Kidd, E. (2003). An investigation of children’s sentence processing: A developmental perspective. PhD Thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
  • Kidd, E. (2003). Relative clause comprehension revisited: Commentary on Eisenberg (2002). Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 671-679. doi:10.1017/S0305000903005683.

    Abstract

    Eisenberg (2002) presents data from an experiment investigating three- and four-year-old children's comprehension of restrictive relative clauses (RC). From the results she argues, contrary to Hamburger & Crain (1982), that children do not have discourse knowledge of the felicity conditions of RCs before acquiring the syntax of relativization. This note evaluates this conclusion on the basis of the methodology used, and proposes that an account of syntactic development needs to be sensitive to the real-time processing requirements acquisition places on the learner.
  • Kirsch, K., & Dittmar, N. (2002). [Review of the book Russlanddeutsche Sprachbiografien: Untersuchungen zur sprachlichen Integration von Aussiedlerfamilien by Katharina Meng]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 21, 295-296.
  • Kita, S. (2003). Pointing: A foundational building block in human communication. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 1-8). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kita, S. (Ed.). (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 16-32. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00505-3.

    Abstract

    Gestures that spontaneously accompany speech convey information coordinated with the concurrent speech. There has been considerable theoretical disagreement about the process by which this informational coordination is achieved. Some theories predict that the information encoded in gesture is not influenced by how information is verbally expressed. However, others predict that gestures encode only what is encoded in speech. This paper investigates this issue by comparing informational coordination between speech and gesture across different languages. Narratives in Turkish, Japanese, and English were elicited using an animated cartoon as the stimulus. It was found that gestures used to express the same motion events were influenced simultaneously by (1) how features of motion events were expressed in each language, and (2) spatial information in the stimulus that was never verbalized. From this, it is concluded that gestures are generated from spatio-motoric processes that interact on-line with the speech production process. Through the interaction, spatio-motoric information to be expressed is packaged into chunks that are verbalizable within a processing unit for speech formulation. In addition, we propose a model of speech and gesture production as one of a class of frameworks that are compatible with the data.
  • Kita, S. (Ed.). (2002). 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the Manual for the field season 2001. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Kita, S. (2003). Interplay of gaze, hand, torso orientation and language in pointing. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 307-328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kita, S. (2002). Jesuchaa: kangaeru karada: Gesture: the body that thinks. Tokyo: Kaneko Shobo.
  • Kita, S., & Essegbey, J. (2003). Left-hand taboo on direction-indicating gestures in Ghana: When and why people still use left-hand gestures. In M. Rector, I. Poggi, & N. Trigo (Eds.), Gesture: Meaning and use (pp. 301-306). Oporto: Edições Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Fundação Fernado Pessoa.
  • Kita, S., van Gijn, I., & van der Hulst, H. (1998). Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders. In Gesture and Sign-Language in Human-Computer Interaction (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence - LNCS Subseries, Vol. 1371) (pp. 23-35). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

    Abstract

    The previous literature has suggested that the hand movement in co-speech gestures and signs consists of a series of phases with qualitatively different dynamic characteristics. In this paper, we propose a syntagmatic rule system for movement phases that applies to both co-speech gestures and signs. Descriptive criteria for the rule system were developed for the analysis video-recorded continuous production of signs and gesture. It involves segmenting a stream of body movement into phases and identifying different phase types. Two human coders used the criteria to analyze signs and cospeech gestures that are produced in natural discourse. It was found that the criteria yielded good inter-coder reliability. These criteria can be used for the technology of automatic recognition of signs and co-speech gestures in order to segment continuous production and identify the potentially meaningbearing phase.
  • Kita, S., & Enfield, N. J. (2003). Recording recommendations for video research. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 8-9). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Kita, S. (2002). Preface and priorities. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 3-4). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Klein, W., & Von Stutterheim, C. (2002). Quaestio and L-perspectivation. In C. F. Graumann, & W. Kallmeyer (Eds.), Perspective and perspectivation in discourse (pp. 59-88). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (2002). Sprache des Rechts II [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 128.
  • Klein, W. (2002). The argument-time structure of recipient constructions in German. In W. Abraham, & J.-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in formal german(ic) typology (pp. 141-178). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    It is generally assumed that verbs have an ‘argument structure’, which imposes various constraints on the noun phrases that can or must go with the verb, and an ‘event structure’, which characterises the particular temporal characteristics of the ‘event’ which the verb relates to: this event may be a state, a process, an activity, an ‘event in the narrow sense’, and others. In this paper, it is argued that that argument structure and event structure should be brought together. The lexical content of a verb assigns descriptive properties to one or more arguments at one or more times, hence verbs have an ‘argument time-structure’ (AT-structure). Numerous morphological and syntactical operations, such as participle formation or complex verb constructions, modify this AT-structure. This is illustrated with German recipient constructions such as ein Buch geschenkt bekommen or das Fenster geöffnet kriegen.
  • Klein, W. (2002). Time in language (in Korean, translated by Soo-Song Shin). Seoul: Doseo-chul-phan Yeok lak.
  • Klein, W. (2002). Why case marking? In I. Kaufmann, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words: Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich (pp. 251-273). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  • Klein, W. (2003). Wozu braucht man eigentlich Flexionsmorphologie? Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 131, 23-54.
  • Klein, W. (1986). Der Wahn vom Sprachverfall und andere Mythen. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 62, 11-28.
  • Klein, W. (1998). Ein Blick zurück auf die Varietätengrammatik. In U. Ammon, K. Mattheier, & P. Nelde (Eds.), Sociolinguistica: Internationales Jahrbuch für europäische Soziolinguistik (pp. 22-38). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Klein, W. (1985). Einleitung. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik; Metzler, Stuttgart, 15(59), 7-8.
  • Klein, W. (1986). Einleitung. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik; Metzler, Stuttgart, 16(62), 9-10.
  • Klein, W. (1988). Einleitung. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik; Metzler, Stuttgart, 18(69), 7-8.
  • Klein, W. (1985). Ellipse, Fokusgliederung und thematischer Stand. In R. Meyer-Hermann, & H. Rieser (Eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke (pp. 1-24). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Klein, W. (1977). Die Wissenschaft der Interpretation. In W. Klein (Ed.), Methoden der Textanalyse (pp. 1-23). Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.
  • Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1986). Comment résourdre une tache verbale complexe avec peu de moyens linguistiques? In A. Giacomi, & D. Véronique (Eds.), Acquisition d'une langue étrangère (pp. 306-330). Aix-en-Provence: Service des Publications de l'Universite de Provence.
  • Klein, W. (1985). Argumentationsanalyse: Ein Begriffsrahmen und ein Beispiel. In W. Kopperschmidt, & H. Schanze (Eds.), Argumente - Argumentationen (pp. 208-260). München: Fink.
  • Klein, W. (1998). Assertion and finiteness. In N. Dittmar, & Z. Penner (Eds.), Issues in the theory of language acquisition: Essays in honor of Jürgen Weissenborn (pp. 225-245). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Klein, W., & Jungbluth, K. (Eds.). (2002). Deixis [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 125.
  • Klein, W., & Dimroth, C. (2003). Der ungesteuerte Zweitspracherwerb Erwachsener: Ein Überblick über den Forschungsstand. In U. Maas, & U. Mehlem (Eds.), Qualitätsanforderungen für die Sprachförderung im Rahmen der Integration von Zuwanderern (Heft 21) (pp. 127-161). Osnabrück: IMIS.
  • Klein, W., & Franceschini, R. (Eds.). (2003). Einfache Sprache [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 131.
  • Klein, W., & Jungbluth, K. (2002). Einleitung - Introduction. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 125, 5-9.
  • Klein, W., & Musan, R. (2002). (A)Symmetry in language: seit and bis, and others. In C. Maienborn (Ed.), (A)Symmetrien - (A)Symmetry. Beiträge zu Ehren von Ewald Lang - Papers in Honor of Ewald Lang (pp. 283-295). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
  • Klein, W. (1991). Geile Binsenbüschel, sehr intime Gespielen: Ein paar Anmerkungen über Arno Schmidt als Übersetzer. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 84, 124-129.
  • Klein, W. (1985). Gesprochene Sprache - geschriebene Sprache. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 59, 9-35.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1977). Methoden der Textanalyse. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
  • Klein, W. (1986). Intonation und Satzmodalität in einfachen Fällen: Einige Beobachtungen. In E. Slembek (Ed.), Miteinander sprechen und handeln: Festschrift für Hellmut Geissner (pp. 161-177). Königstein Ts.: Scriptor.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1998). Kaleidoskop [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (112).
  • Klein, W. (1977). Organisation des Wissens durch Sprache: Konsequenzen für die maschinelle Sprachanalyse. IBM Nachrichten, 27(234), 11-17.
  • Klein, W. (1991). Raumausdrücke. Linguistische Berichte, 132, 77-114.
  • Klein, W., & Von Stutterheim, C. (1991). Text structure and referential movement. Arbeitsberichte des Forschungsprogramms S&P: Sprache und Pragmatik, 22.
  • Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 48, 527-550. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00057.

    Abstract

    During the last 25 years, second language acquisition (SLA) research hasmade considerable progress, but is still far from proving a solid basis for foreign language teaching, or from a general theory of SLA. In addition, its status within the linguistic disciplines is still very low. I argue this has not much to do with low empirical or theoretical standards in the field—in this regard, SLA research is fully competitive—but with a particular perspective on the acquisition process: SLA researches learners' utterances as deviations from a certain target, instead of genuine manifestations of underlying language capacity; it analyses them in terms of what they are not rather than what they are. For some purposes such a "target deviation perspective" makes sense, but it will not help SLA researchers to substantially and independently contribute to a deeper understanding of the structure and function of the human language faculty. Therefore, these findings will remain of limited interest to other scientists until SLA researchers consider learner varieties a normal, in fact typical, manifestation of this unique human capacity.
  • Klein, W. (1991). Seven trivia of language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal grammar in the second language (pp. 49-70). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (1991). SLA theory: Prolegomena to a theory of language acquisition and implications for Theoretical Linguistics. In T. Huebner, & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 169-194). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1988). Sprache Kranker [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (69).
  • Klein, W. (1988). Sprache und Krankheit: Ein paar Anmerkungen. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 69, 9-20.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1986). Sprachverfall [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (62).
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1985). Schriftlichkeit [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (59).
  • Klein, W. (1985). Sechs Grundgrößen des Spracherwerbs. In R. Eppeneder (Ed.), Lernersprache: Thesen zum Erwerb einer Fremdsprache (pp. 67-106). München: Goethe Institut.
  • Klein, W. (1988). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Klein, W., & Vater, H. (1998). The perfect in English and German. In L. Kulikov, & H. Vater (Eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday (pp. 215-235). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Klein, W. (1991). Was kann sich die Übersetzungswissenschaft von der Linguistik erwarten? Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 84, 104-123.
  • Klein, W. (1988). The unity of a vernacular: Some remarks on "Berliner Stadtsprache". In N. Dittmar, & P. Schlobinski (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of urban vernaculars: Case studies and their evaluation (pp. 147-153). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Klein, W. (1977). Transitional grammars in the acquisition of German by Spanish and Italian workers. In J. Meisel (Ed.), Langues en contact - Pidgins - Creoles - Languages in contact (pp. 167-183). Tübingen: Narr.
  • Klein, W. (1986). Über Ansehen und Wirkung der deutschen Sprachwissenschaft heute. Linguistische Berichte, 100, 511-520.
  • Klein, W. (1988). Varietätengrammatik. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. J. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society: Vol. 2 (pp. 997-1060). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Klein, W. (1998). Von der einfältigen Wißbegierde. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 112, 6-13.
  • Knosche, T. R., & Bastiaansen, M. C. M. (2002). On the time resolution of event-related desynchronization: A simulation study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(5), 754-763. doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00055-X.

    Abstract

    Objectives: To investigate the time resolution of different methods for the computation of event-related desynchronization/synchronization (ERD/ERS), including one based on Hilbert transform. Methods: In order to better understand the time resolution of ERD/ERS, which is a function of factors such as the exact computation method, the frequency under study, the number of trials, and the sampling frequency, we simulated sudden changes in oscillation amplitude as well as very short and closely spaced events. Results: Hilbert-based ERD yields very similar results to ERD integrated over predefined time intervals (block ERD), if the block length is half the period length of the studied frequency. ERD predicts the onset of a change in oscillation amplitude with an error margin of only 10–30 ms. On the other hand, the time the ERD response needs to climb to its full height after a sudden change in oscillation amplitude is quite long, i.e. between 200 and 500 ms. With respect to sensitivity to short oscillatory events, the ratio between sampling frequency and electroencephalographic frequency band plays a major role. Conclusions: (1) The optimal time interval for the computation of block ERD is half a period of the frequency under investigation. (2) Due to the slow impulse response, amplitude effects in the ERD may in reality be caused by duration differences. (3) Although ERD based on the Hilbert transform does not yield any significant advantages over classical ERD in terms of time resolution, it has some important practical advantages.
  • Köster, O., Hess, M. M., Schiller, N. O., & Künzel, H. J. (1998). The correlation between auditory speech sensitivity and speaker recognition ability. Forensic Linguistics: The international Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 5, 22-32.

    Abstract

    In various applications of forensic phonetics the question arises as to how far aural-perceptual speaker recognition performance is reliable. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the relationship between speaker recognition results and human perception/production abilities like musicality or speech sensitivity. In this study, performance in a speaker recognition experiment and a speech sensitivity test are correlated. The results show a moderately significant positive correlation between the two tasks. Generally, performance in the speaker recognition task was better than in the speech sensitivity test. Professionals in speech and singing yielded a more homogeneous correlation than non-experts. Training in speech as well as choir-singing seems to have a positive effect on performance in speaker recognition. It may be concluded, firstly, that in cases where the reliability of voice line-up results or the credibility of a testimony have to be considered, the speech sensitivity test could be a useful indicator. Secondly, the speech sensitivity test might be integrated into the canon of possible procedures for the accreditation of forensic phoneticians. Both tests may also be used in combination.
  • Krämer, I. (1998). Children's interpretations of indefinite object noun phrases. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1998, 163-174. doi:10.1075/avt.15.15kra.
  • Krott, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2002). Analogical hierarchy: Exemplar-based modeling of linkers in Dutch noun-noun compounds. In R. Skousen (Ed.), Analogical modeling: An exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 181-206). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Kuijpers, C., Van Donselaar, W., & Cutler, A. (2002). Perceptual effects of assimilation-induced violation of final devoicing in Dutch. In J. H. L. Hansen, & B. Pellum (Eds.), The 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1661-1664). Denver: ICSA.

    Abstract

    Voice assimilation in Dutch is an optional phonological rule which changes the surface forms of words and in doing so may violate the otherwise obligatory phonological rule of syllablefinal devoicing. We report two experiments examining the influence of voice assimilation on phoneme processing, in lexical compound words and in noun-verb phrases. Processing was not impaired in appropriate assimilation contexts across morpheme boundaries, but was impaired when devoicing was violated (a) in an inappropriate non-assimilatory) context, or (b) across a syntactic boundary.
  • Kuijpers, C. T., Coolen, R., Houston, D., & Cutler, A. (1998). Using the head-turning technique to explore cross-linguistic performance differences. In C. Rovee-Collier, L. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne (Eds.), Advances in infancy research: Vol. 12 (pp. 205-220). Stamford: Ablex.
  • Kuiper, K., McCann, H., Quinn, H., Aitchison, T., & Van der Veer, K. (2003). A syntactically annotated idiom dataset (SAID). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Küntay, A. C., & Slobin, D. I. (2002). Putting interaction back into child language: Examples from Turkish. Psychology of Language and Communication, 6(1): 14.

    Abstract

    As in the case of other non-English languages, the study of the acquisition of Turkish has mostly focused on aspects of grammatical morphology and syntax, largely neglecting the study of the effect of interactional factors on child morphosyntax. This paper reviews indications from past research that studying input and adult-child discourse can facilitate the study of the acquisition of morphosyntax in the Turkish language. It also provides some recent studies of Turkish child language on the relationship of child-directed speech to the early acquisition of morphosyntax, and on the pragmatic features of a certain kind of discourse form in child-directed speech called variation sets.
  • Kuntay, A., & Ozyurek, A. (2002). Joint attention and the development of the use of demonstrative pronouns in Turkish. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. H. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 336-347). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  • Kuzla, C. (2003). Prosodically-conditioned variation in the realization of domain-final stops and voicing assimilation of domain-initial fricatives in German. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2003) (pp. 2829-2832). Adelaide: Causal Productions.
  • Lai, C. S. L., Gerrelli, D., Monaco, A. P., Fisher, S. E., & Copp, A. J. (2003). FOXP2 expression during brain development coincides with adult sites of pathology in a severe speech and language disorder. Brain, 126(11), 2455-2462. doi:10.1093/brain/awg247.

    Abstract

    Disruption of FOXP2, a gene encoding a forkhead-domain transcription factor, causes a severe developmental disorder of verbal communication, involving profound articulation deficits, accompanied by linguistic and grammatical impairments. Investigation of the neural basis of this disorder has been limited previously to neuroimaging of affected children and adults. The discovery of the gene responsible, FOXP2, offers a unique opportunity to explore the relevant neural mechanisms from a molecular perspective. In the present study, we have determined the detailed spatial and temporal expression pattern of FOXP2 mRNA in the developing brain of mouse and human. We find expression in several structures including the cortical plate, basal ganglia, thalamus, inferior olives and cerebellum. These data support a role for FOXP2 in the development of corticostriatal and olivocerebellar circuits involved in motor control. We find intriguing concordance between regions of early expression and later sites of pathology suggested by neuroimaging. Moreover, the homologous pattern of FOXP2/Foxp2 expression in human and mouse argues for a role for this gene in development of motor-related circuits throughout mammalian species. Overall, this study provides support for the hypothesis that impairments in sequencing of movement and procedural learning might be central to the FOXP2-related speech and language disorder.
  • De Lange, F. P., Hagoort, P., & Toni, I. (2003). Differential fronto-parietal contributions to visual and motor imagery. NeuroImage, 19(2), e2094-e2095.

    Abstract

    Mental imagery is a cognitive process crucial to human reasoning. Numerous studies have characterized specific
    instances of this cognitive ability, as evoked by visual imagery (VI) or motor imagery (MI) tasks. However, it
    remains unclear which neural resources are shared between VI and MI, and which are exclusively related to MI.
    To address this issue, we have used fMRI to measure human brain activity during performance of VI and MI
    tasks. Crucially, we have modulated the imagery process by manipulating the degree of mental rotation necessary
    to solve the tasks. We focused our analysis on changes in neural signal as a function of the degree of mental
    rotation in each task.
  • Lausberg, H., Cruz, R. F., Kita, S., Zaidel, E., & Ptito, A. (2003). Pantomime to visual presentation of objects: Left hand dyspraxia in patients with complete callosotomy. Brain, 126(2), 343-360. doi:10.1093/brain/awg042.

    Abstract

    Investigations of left hand praxis in imitation and object use in patients with callosal disconnection have yielded divergent results, inducing a debate between two theoretical positions. Whereas Liepmann suggested that the left hemisphere is motor dominant, others maintain that both hemispheres have equal motor competences and propose that left hand apraxia in patients with callosal disconnection is secondary to left hemispheric specialization for language or other task modalities. The present study aims to gain further insight into the motor competence of the right hemisphere by investigating pantomime of object use in split-brain patients. Three patients with complete callosotomy and, as control groups, five patients with partial callosotomy and nine healthy subjects were examined for their ability to pantomime object use to visual object presentation and demonstrate object manipulation. In each condition, 11 objects were presented to the subjects who pantomimed or demonstrated the object use with either hand. In addition, six object pairs were presented to test bimanual coordination. Two independent raters evaluated the videotaped movement demonstrations. While object use demonstrations were perfect in all three groups, the split-brain patients displayed apraxic errors only with their left hands in the pantomime condition. The movement analysis of concept and execution errors included the examination of ipsilateral versus contralateral motor control. As the right hand/left hemisphere performances demonstrated retrieval of the correct movement concepts, concept errors by the left hand were taken as evidence for right hemisphere control. Several types of execution errors reflected a lack of distal motor control indicating the use of ipsilateral pathways. While one split-brain patient controlled his left hand predominantly by ipsilateral pathways in the pantomime condition, the error profile in the other two split-brain patients suggested that the right hemisphere controlled their left hands. In the object use condition, in all three split-brain patients fine-graded distal movements in the left hand indicated right hemispheric control. Our data show left hand apraxia in split-brain patients is not limited to verbal commands, but also occurs in pantomime to visual presentation of objects. As the demonstration with object in hand was unimpaired in either hand, both hemispheres must contain movement concepts for object use. However, the disconnected right hemisphere is impaired in retrieving the movement concept in response to visual object presentation, presumably because of a deficit in associating perceptual object representation with the movement concepts.
  • Lausberg, H., Kita, S., Zaidel, E., & Ptito, A. (2003). Split-brain patients neglect left personal space during right-handed gestures. Neuropsychologia, 41(10), 1317-1329. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(03)00047-2.

    Abstract

    Since some patients with right hemisphere damage or with spontaneous callosal disconnection neglect the left half of space, it has been suggested that the left cerebral hemisphere predominantly attends to the right half of space. However, clinical investigations of patients having undergone surgical callosal section have not shown neglect when the hemispheres are tested separately. These observations question the validity of theoretical models that propose a left hemispheric specialisation for attending to the right half of space. The present study aims to investigate neglect and the use of space by either hand in gestural demonstrations in three split-brain patients as compared to five patients with partial callosotomy and 11 healthy subjects. Subjects were asked to demonstrate with precise gestures and without speaking the content of animated scenes with two moving objects. The results show that in the absence of primary perceptual or representational neglect, split-brain patients neglect left personal space in right-handed gestural demonstrations. Since this neglect of left personal space cannot be explained by directional or spatial akinesia, it is suggested that it originates at the conceptual level, where the spatial coordinates for right-hand gestures are planned. The present findings are at odds with the position that the separate left hemisphere possesses adequate mechanisms for acting in both halves of space and neglect results from right hemisphere suppression of this potential. Rather, the results provide support for theoretical models that consider the left hemisphere as specialised for processing the right half of space during the execution of descriptive gestures.
  • Lausberg, H., & Kita, S. (2003). The content of the message influences the hand choice in co-speech gestures and in gesturing without speaking. Brain and Language, 86(1), 57-69. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00534-5.

    Abstract

    The present study investigates the hand choice in iconic gestures that accompany speech. In 10 right-handed subjects gestures were elicited by verbal narration and by silent gestural demonstrations of animations with two moving objects. In both conditions, the left-hand was used as often as the right-hand to display iconic gestures. The choice of the right- or left-hands was determined by semantic aspects of the message. The influence of hemispheric language lateralization on the hand choice in co-speech gestures appeared to be minor. Instead, speaking seemed to induce a sequential organization of the iconic gestures.
  • Lausberg, H., & Kita, S. (2002). Dissociation of right and left gesture spaces in split-brain patients. Cortex, 38(5), 883-886. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70062-5.

    Abstract

    The present study investigates hemispheric specialisation in the use of space in communicative gestures. For this purpose, we investigate split-brain patients in whom spontaneous and distinct right hand gestures can only be controlled by the left hemisphere and vice versa, the left hand only by the right hemisphere. On this anatomical basis, we can infer hemispheric specialisation from the performances of the right and left hands. In contrast to left hand dyspraxia in tasks that require language processing, split-brain patients utilise their left hands in a meaningful way in visuo-constructive tasks such as copying drawings or block-design. Therefore, we conjecture that split-brain patients are capable of using their left hands for the communication of the content of visuo-spatial animations via gestural demonstration. On this basis, we further examine the use of space in communicative gestures by the right and left hands. McNeill and Pedelty (1995) noted for the split-brain patient N.G. that her iconic right hand gestures were exclusively displayed in the right personal space. The present study investigates systematically if there is indication for neglect of the left personal space in right hand gestures in split-brain patients.
  • Lausberg, H., & Kita, S. (2002). Dissociation of right and left hand gesture spaces in split-brain patients. Cortex, 38(5), 883-886. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70062-5.

    Abstract

    The present study investigates hemispheric specialisation in the use of space in communicative gestures. For this purpose, we investigate split-brain patients in whom spontaneous and distinct right hand gestures can only be controlled by the left hemisphere and vice versa, the left hand only by the right hemisphere. On this anatomical basis, we can infer hemispheric specialisation from the performances of the right and left hands. In contrast to left hand dyspraxia in tasks that require language processing, split-brain patients utilise their left hands in a meaningful way in visuo-constructive tasks such as copying drawings or block-design. Therefore, we conjecture that split-brain patients are capable of using their left hands for the communication of the content of visuo-spatial animations via gestural demonstration. On this basis, we further examine the use of space in communicative gestures by the right and left hands. McNeill and Pedelty (1995) noted for the split-brain patient N.G. that her iconic right hand gestures were exclusively displayed in the right personal space. The present study investigates systematically if there is indication for neglect of the left personal space in right hand gestures in split-brain patients.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Phonological encoding in speech production: Comments on Jurafsky et al., Schiller et al., and van Heuven & Haan. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VII (pp. 87-99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Share this page