Displaying 1 - 14 of 14
  • Bowerman, M. (1977). The acquisition of word meaning: An investigation of some current concepts. In P. Johnson Laird, & P. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 239-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cutler, A. (1977). The context-dependence of "intonational meanings". In W. Beach, S. Fox, & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 104-115). Chicago, Ill.: CLS.
  • Cutler, A. (1977). The psychological reality of word formation and lexical stress rules. In E. Fischer-Jørgensen, J. Rischel, & N. Thorsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences: Vol. 2 (pp. 79-85). Copenhagen: Institute of Phonetics, University of Copenhagen.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Building a psychologically plausible sentence generator. In P. A. M. Seuren (Ed.), Symposium on semantic theory: held at Nijmegen, March 14-18, 1977 / Volume 9 (pp. 107-117 ). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.


    The psychological process of translating semantic into syntactic structures has dynamic properties such as the following. (1) The speaker is able to start pronouncing an utterance before having worked out the semantic content he wishes to express. Selection of semantic content and construction of syntactic form proceed partially in parallel. (2) The human sentence generator takes as input not only a specification of semantic content but also some indication of desired syntactic shape. Such indications, if present, do not complicate the generation process but make it easier. (3) Certain regularities of speech errors suggest a two-stage generation process. Stage I constructs the “syntactic skeleton” of an utterance; stage II provides the skeleton with morpho- honological information. An outline is given of the type of grammar which is used by a sentence generation system embodying these characteristics. The system is being implemented on a computer.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Conceptualizing and formulating in sentence production. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production: Developments in research and theory (pp. 259-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 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., & 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.


    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. (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.
  • Klein, W. (1977). Die Wissenschaft der Interpretation. In W. Klein (Ed.), Methoden der Textanalyse (pp. 1-23). Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.
  • 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.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., Van Gent, J., Haans, A., & Meijers, A. (1977). Grammaticality, paraphrase, and imagery. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), Acceptability in language (pp. 87-101). The Hague: Mouton.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Plomp, R. (1962). Musical consonance and critical bandwidth. In Proceedings of the 4th International Congress Acoustics (pp. 55-55).
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1962). Motion breaking and the perception of causality. In A. Michotte (Ed.), Causalité, permanence et réalité phénoménales: Etudes de psychologie expérimentale (pp. 244-258). Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Plomp, K. (1968). The appreciation of musical intervals. In J. M. M. Aler (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth International Congress of Aesthetics, Amsterdam 1964 (pp. 901-904). The Hague: Mouton.

Share this page