Publications

Displaying 1 - 100 of 130
  • Ameka, F. K. (2005). "The woman is seeable" and "The woman perceives seeing": Undergoer voice constructions in Ewe and Likpe. In M. Dakubu, & E. Osam (Eds.), Studies in languages of the Volta Basin (pp. 43-62). Legon: University of Ghana. Department of Linguistics.
  • Ameka, F. K. (2005). Forms of secondary predication in serializing languages: On depictives in Ewe. In N. P. Himmelmann, & E. Schultze-Berndt (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives (pp. 335-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ameka, F. K. (2005). Multiverb constructions on the West African littoral: Microvariation and areal typology. In M. Vulchanova, & T. A. Afarli (Eds.), Grammar and beyond: Essays in honour of Lars Hellan (pp. 15-42). Oslo: Novus.
  • Baayen, R. H. (2005). Data mining at the intersection of psychology and linguistics. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 69-83). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  • Bauer, B. L. M. (2000). From Latin to French: The linear development of word order. In B. Bichakjian, T. Chernigovskaya, A. Kendon, & A. Müller (Eds.), Becoming Loquens: More studies in language origins (pp. 239-257). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
  • Bauer, B. L. M. (2005). Living in two worlds. In W. R. Louis (Ed.), Burnt orange Britannia (pp. 732-744). Austin: Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center.
  • Bauer, B. L. M. (1997). Nominal syntax in Italic: A diachronic perspective. In Language change and functional explanations (pp. 273-301). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Bauer, B. L. M. (2005). Innovation in Old French syntax and its Latin origins. In S. Kiss, L. Mondin, & G. Salvi (Eds.), Latin et langues romanes: Etudes de linguistique offertes à Jozsef Herman à l’occasion de son 80ème anniversaire (pp. 507-521). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (1998). Sententiale Topics im Yukatekischen. In Z. Dietmar (Ed.), Deskriptive Grammatik und allgemeiner Sprachvergleich (pp. 55-85). Tübingen, Germany: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (1998). Temporale Relatoren im Hispano-Yukatekischen Sprachkontakt. In A. Koechert, & T. Stolz (Eds.), Convergencia e Individualidad - Las lenguas Mayas entre hispanización e indigenismo (pp. 195-241). Hannover, Germany: Verlag für Ethnologie.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (2000). Where do pragmatic meanings come from? In W. Spooren, T. Sanders, & C. van Wijk (Eds.), Samenhang in Diversiteit; Opstellen voor Leo Noorman, aangeboden bij gelegenheid van zijn zestigste verjaardag (pp. 137-153).
  • Böttner, M. (1997). Natural Language. In C. Brink, W. Kahl, & G. Schmidt (Eds.), Relational Methods in computer science (pp. 229-249). Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag.
  • Bowden, J. (1997). The meanings of Directionals in Taba. In G. Senft (Ed.), Referring to Space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Languages (pp. 251-268). New York, NJ: Oxford University Press.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Bowerman, M. (2005). Linguistics. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of child development (pp. 497-501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (2005). Why can't you "open" a nut or "break" a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe, & D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 209-243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bowerman, M. (2000). Where do children's word meanings come from? Rethinking the role of cognition in early semantic development. In L. Nucci, G. Saxe, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Culture, thought and development (pp. 199-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Brown, P. (2000). ’He descended legs-upwards‘: Position and motion in Tzeltal frog stories. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 30th Stanford Child Language Research Forum (pp. 67-75). Stanford: CSLI.

    Abstract

    How are events framed in narrative? Speakers of English (a 'satellite-framed' language), when 'reading' Mercer Mayer's wordless picture book 'Frog, Where Are You?', find the story self-evident: a boy has a dog and a pet frog; the frog escapes and runs away; the boy and dog look for it across hill and dale, through woods and over a cliff, until they find it and return home with a baby frog child of the original pet frog. In Tzeltal, as spoken in a Mayan community in southern Mexico, the story is somewhat different, because the language structures event descriptions differently. Tzeltal is in part a 'verb-framed' language with a set of Path-encoding motion verbs, so that the bare bones of the Frog story can consist of verbs translating as 'go'/'pass by'/'ascend'/ 'descend'/ 'arrive'/'return'. But Tzeltal also has satellite-framing adverbials, grammaticized from the same set of motion verbs, which encode the direction of motion or the orientation of static arrays. Furthermore, vivid pictorial detail is provided by positional verbs which can describe the position of the Figure as an outcome of a motion event; motion and stasis are thereby combined in a single event description. (For example:  jipot jawal "he has been thrown (by the deer) lying­_face_upwards_spread-eagled". This paper compares the use of these three linguistic resources in Frog Story narratives from  Tzeltal adults and children, looks at their development in the narratives of children, and considers the results in relation to those from Berman and Slobin's (1996) comparative study of adult and child Frog stories.
  • Brown, P. (1998). Early Tzeltal verbs: Argument structure and argument representation. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum (pp. 129-140). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Abstract

    The surge of research activity focussing on children's acquisition of verbs (e.g., Tomasello and Merriman 1996) addresses some fundamental questions: Just how variable across languages, and across individual children, is the process of verb learning? How specific are arguments to particular verbs in early child language? How does the grammatical category 'Verb' develop? The position of Universal Grammar, that a verb category is early, contrasts with that of Tomasello (1992), Pine and Lieven and their colleagues (1996, in press), and many others, that children develop a verb category slowly, gradually building up subcategorizations of verbs around pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic properties of the language they are exposed to. On this latter view, one would expect the language which the child is learning, the cultural milieu and the nature of the interactions in which the child is engaged, to influence the process of acquiring verb argument structures. This paper explores these issues by examining the development of argument representation in the Mayan language Tzeltal, in both its lexical and verbal cross-referencing forms, and analyzing the semantic and pragmatic factors influencing the form argument representation takes. Certain facts about Tzeltal (the ergative/ absolutive marking, the semantic specificity of transitive and positional verbs) are proposed to affect the representation of arguments. The first 500 multimorpheme combinations of 3 children (aged between 1;8 and 2;4) are examined. It is argued that there is no evidence of semantically light 'pathbreaking' verbs (Ninio 1996) leading the way into word combinations. There is early productivity of cross-referencing affixes marking A, S, and O arguments (although there are systematic omissions). The paper assesses the respective contributions of three kinds of factors to these results - structural (regular morphology), semantic (verb specificity) and pragmatic (the nature of Tzeltal conversational interaction).
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2000). Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal. In L. Nucci, G. Saxe, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Culture, thought, and development (pp. 167-197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Brown, P. (1998). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender (pp. 81-99). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brown, P. (1997). Isolating the CVC root in Tzeltal Mayan: A study of children's first verbs. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 41-52). Stanford, CA: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.

    Abstract

    How do children isolate the semantic package contained in verb roots in the Mayan language Tzeltal? One might imagine that the canonical CVC shape of roots characteristic of Mayan languages would make the job simple, but the root is normally preceded and followed by affixes which mask its identity. Pye (1983) demonstrated that, in Kiche' Mayan, prosodic salience overrides semantic salience, and children's first words in Kiche' are often composed of only the final (stressed) syllable constituted by the final consonant of the CVC root and a 'meaningless' termination suffix. Intonation thus plays a crucial role in early Kiche' morphological development. Tzeltal presents a rather different picture: The first words of children around the age of 1;6 are bare roots, children strip off all prefixes and suffixes which are obligatory in adult speech. They gradually add them, starting with the suffixes (which receive the main stress), but person prefixes are omitted in some contexts past a child's third birthday, and one obligatory aspectual prefix (x-) is systematically omitted by the four children in my longitudinal study even after they are four years old. Tzeltal children's first verbs generally show faultless isolation of the root. An account in terms of intonation or stress cannot explain this ability (the prefixes are not all syllables; the roots are not always stressed). This paper suggests that probable clues include the fact that the CVC root stays constant across contexts (with some exceptions) whereas the affixes vary, that there are some linguistic contexts where the root occurs without any prefixes (relatively frequent in the input), and that the Tzeltal discourse convention of responding by repeating with appropriate deictic alternation (e.g., "I see it." "Oh, you see it.") highlights the root.
  • Brown, P. (2005). Linguistic politeness. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 1410-1416). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Abstract

    This is an encyclopedia entry surveying research and theoretical approaches to politeness phenomena in language usage.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1998). Politeness, introduction to the reissue: A review of recent work. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Vol. 6 Grammar, psychology and sociology (pp. 488-554). London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    This article is a reprint of chapter 1, the introduction to Brown and Levinson, 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Cambridge University Press).
  • Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration processes during language comprehension: Evidence from brain-imaging research. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd., pp. 881-895). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2000). On the electrophysiology of language comprehension: Implications for the human language system. In M. W. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 213-237). Cambridge University Press.
  • Chen, H.-C., & Cutler, A. (1997). Auditory priming in spoken and printed word recognition. In H.-C. Chen (Ed.), Cognitive processing of Chinese and related Asian languages (pp. 77-81). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
  • Crago, M. B., & Allen, S. E. M. (1998). Acquiring Inuktitut. In O. L. Taylor, & L. Leonard (Eds.), Language Acquisition Across North America: Cross-Cultural And Cross-Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 245-279). San Diego, CA, USA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
  • Crago, M. B., Allen, S. E. M., & Hough-Eyamie, W. P. (1997). Exploring innateness through cultural and linguistic variation. In M. Gopnik (Ed.), The inheritance and innateness of grammars (pp. 70-90). New York City, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, Inc.
  • Cutler, A. (2000). Hoe het woord het oor verovert. In Voordrachten uitgesproken tijdens de uitreiking van de SPINOZA-premies op 15 februari 2000 (pp. 29-41). The Hague, The Netherlands: Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO).
  • Cutler, A. (2005). Lexical stress. In D. B. Pisoni, & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 264-289). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Cutler, A. (2000). How the ear comes to hear. In New Trends in Modern Linguistics [Part of Annual catalogue series] (pp. 6-10). Tokyo, Japan: Maruzen Publishers.
  • Cutler, A., & Broersma, M. (2005). Phonetic precision in listening. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. M. Beck (Eds.), A figure of speech: A Festschrift for John Laver (pp. 63-91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cutler, A. (1998). Prosodic structure and word recognition. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 41-70). Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Cutler, A. (1997). Prosody and the structure of the message. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, & N. Higuchi (Eds.), Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech (pp. 63-66). Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Cutler, A. (2000). Real words, phantom words and impossible words. In D. Burnham, S. Luksaneeyanawin, C. Davis, & M. Lafourcade (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language processing: The international conference on human and machine processing of language and speech (pp. 32-42). Bangkok: NECTEC.
  • Cutler, A., Klein, W., & Levinson, S. C. (2005). The cornerstones of twenty-first century psycholinguistics. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Dijkstra, T., & Kempen, G. (1997). Het taalgebruikersmodel. In H. Hulshof, & T. Hendrix (Eds.), De taalcentrale. Amsterdam: Bulkboek.
  • Dimroth, C., & Watorek, M. (2005). Additive scope particles in advanced learner and native speaker discourse. In Hendriks, & Henriëtte (Eds.), The structure of learner varieties (pp. 461-488). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Dirksmeyer, T. (2005). Why do languages die? Approaching taxonomies, (re-)ordering causes. In J. Wohlgemuth, & T. Dirksmeyer (Eds.), Bedrohte Vielfalt. Aspekte des Sprach(en)tods – Aspects of language death (pp. 53-68). Berlin: Weißensee.

    Abstract

    Under what circumstances do languages die? Why has their “mortality rate” increased dramatically in the recent past? What “causes of death” can be identified for historical cases, to what extent are these generalizable, and how can they be captured in an explanatory theory? In pursuing these questions, it becomes apparent that in typical cases of language death various causes tend to interact in multiple ways. Speakers’ attitudes towards their language play a critical role in all of this. Existing categorial taxonomies do not succeed in modeling the complex relationships between these factors. Therefore, an alternative, dimensional approach is called for to more adequately address (and counter) the causes of language death in a given scenario.
  • Drude, S. (2005). A contribuição alemã à Lingüística e Antropologia dos índios do Brasil, especialmente da Amazônia. In J. J. A. Alves (Ed.), Múltiplas Faces da Históriadas Ciência na Amazônia (pp. 175-196). Belém: EDUFPA.
  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., Senft, B., & Senft, G. (1998). Trobriander (Ost-Neuguinea, Trobriand Inseln, Kaile'una) Fadenspiele 'ninikula'. In Ethnologie - Humanethologische Begleitpublikationen von I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt und Mitarbeitern. Sammelband I, 1985-1987. Göttingen: Institut für den Wissenschaftlichen Film.
  • Eisenbeiss, S. (2000). The acquisition of Determiner Phrase in German child language. In M.-A. Friedemann, & L. Rizzi (Eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax (pp. 26-62). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Enfield, N. J. (2005). Depictive and other secondary predication in Lao. In N. P. Himmelmann, & E. Schultze-Berndt (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification (pp. 379-392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2005). Micro and macro dimensions in linguistic systems. In S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou, & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st Century (pp. 313-326). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2000). On linguocentrism. In M. Pütz, & M. H. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity (pp. 125-157). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Gaby, A. R. (2005). Some participants are more equal than others: Case and the composition of arguments in Kuuk Thaayorre. In M. Amberber, & H. d. Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: the case for the case (pp. 9-39). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Goudbeek, M., Smits, R., Cutler, A., & Swingley, D. (2005). Acquiring auditory and phonetic categories. In H. Cohen, & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 497-513). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Hagoort, P. (2005). Breintaal. In S. Knols, & D. Redeker (Eds.), NWO-Spinozapremies 2005 (pp. 21-34). Den Haag: NWO.
  • Hagoort, P. (2005). Broca's complex as the unification space for language. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 157-173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Hagoort, P., & Indefrey, P. (1997). De neurale architectuur van het menselijk taalvermogen. In H. Peters (Ed.), Handboek stem-, spraak-, en taalpathologie (pp. 1-36). Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
  • Hagoort, P., & Wassenaar, M. (1997). Taalstoornissen: Van theorie tot therapie. In B. Deelman, P. Eling, E. De Haan, A. Jennekens, & A. Van Zomeren (Eds.), Klinische Neuropsychologie (pp. 232-248). Meppel: Boom.
  • Hagoort, P., & Van Turennout, M. (1997). The electrophysiology of speaking: Possibilities of event-related potential research for speech production. In W. Hulstijn, H. Peters, & P. Van Lieshout (Eds.), Speech motor production and fluency disorders: Brain research in speech production (pp. 351-361). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Hagoort, P. (1998). The shadows of lexical meaning in patients with semantic impairments. In B. Stemmer, & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of neurolinguistics (pp. 235-248). New York: Academic Press.
  • Hagoort, P. (1997). Zonder fosfor geen gedachten: Gagarin, geest en brein. In Brain & Mind (pp. 6-14). Utrecht: Reünistenvereniging Veritas.
  • De Hoop, H., & Narasimhan, B. (2005). Differential case-marking in Hindi. In M. Amberber, & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp. 321-345). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Indefrey, P. (1997). PET research in language production. In W. Hulstijn, H. F. M. Peters, & P. H. H. M. Van Lieshout (Eds.), Speech production: motor control, brain research and fluency disorders (pp. 269-278). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The aim of this paper is to discuss an inherent difficulty of PET (and fMRI) research in language production. On the one hand, language production presupposes some degree of freedom for the subject, on the other hand, interpretability of results presupposes restrictions of this freedom. This difficulty is reflected in the existing PET literature in some neglect of the general principle to design experiments in such a way that the results do not allow for alternative interpretations. It is argued that by narrowing down the scope of experiments a gain in interpretability can be achieved.
  • Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The neural correlates of language production. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 845-865). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Abstract

    This chapter reviews the findings of 58 word production experiments using different tasks and neuroimaging techniques. The reported cerebral activation sites are coded in a common anatomic reference system. Based on a functional model of language production, the different word production tasks are analyzed in terms of their processing components. This approach allows a distinction between the core process of word production and preceding task-specific processes (lead-in processes) such as visual or auditory stimulus recognition. The core process of word production is subserved by a left-lateralized perisylvian/thalamic language production network. Within this network there seems to be functional specialization for the processing stages of word production. In addition, this chapter includes a discussion of the available evidence on syntactic production, self-monitoring, and the time course of word production.
  • Ingvar, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2000). Functional maps and brain networks. In A. W. Toga (Ed.), Brain mapping: The systems (pp. 111-140). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Janzen, G., Herrmann, T., Katz, S., & Schweizer, K. (2000). Oblique Angled Intersections and Barriers: Navigating through a Virtual Maze. In Spatial Cognition II (pp. 277-294). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    The configuration of a spatial layout has a substantial effect on the acquisition and the representation of the environment. In four experiments, we investigated navigation difficulties arising at oblique angled intersections. In the first three studies we investigated specific arrow-fork configurations. In dependence on the branch subjects use to enter the intersection different decision latencies and numbers of errors arise. If subjects see the intersection as a fork, it is more difficult to find the correct way as if it is seen as an arrow. In a fourth study we investigated different heuristics people use while making a detour around a barrier. Detour behaviour varies with the perspective. If subjects learn and navigate through the maze in a field perspective they use a heuristic of preferring right angled paths. If they have a view from above and acquire their knowledge in an observer perspective they use oblique angled paths more often.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Janzen, G. (2005). Wie das mensliche Gehirn Orientierung ermöglicht. In G. Plehn (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (pp. 599-601). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Johnsrude, I., Davis, M., & Hervais-Adelman, A. (2005). From sound to meaning: Hierarchical processing in speech comprehension. In D. Pressnitzer, S. McAdams, A. DeCheveigne, & L. Collet (Eds.), Auditory Signal Processing: Physiology, Psychoacoustics, and Models (pp. 299-306). New York: Springer.
  • Jordan, F., & Mace, R. (2005). The evolution of human sex-ratio at birth: A bio-cultural analysis. In R. Mace, C. J. Holden, & S. Shennan (Eds.), The evolution of cultural diversity: A phylogenetic approach (pp. 207-216). London: UCL Press.
  • Jordens, P. (1998). Defaultformen des Präteritums. Zum Erwerb der Vergangenheitsmorphologie im Niederlänidischen. In H. Wegener (Ed.), Eine zweite Sprache lernen (pp. 61-88). Tübingen, Germany: Verlag Gunter Narr.
  • Kempen, G. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
  • Kempen, G. (1997). Taalpsychologie week. In Wetenschappelijke Scheurkalender 1998. Beek: Natuur & Techniek.

    Abstract

    [Seven one-page psycholinguistic sketches]
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2005). The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence - emperical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 329-349). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • 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. (2005). Der alte und der neue Grimm. In Grimm-Sozietät (Ed.), Die Brüder Grimm in Berlin (pp. 167-176). Stuttgart: Hirzel.
  • Klein, W. (2000). Der Mythos vom Sprachverfall. In Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Ed.), Jahrbuch 1999: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (pp. 139-158). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  • 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., & Nüse, R. (1997). La complexité du simple: L'éxpression de la spatialité dans le langage humain. In M. Denis (Ed.), Langage et cognition spatiale (pp. 1-23). Paris: Masson.
  • Klein, W. (1997). On the "Imperfective paradox" and related problems. In M. Schwarz, C. Dürscheid, & K.-H. Ramers (Eds.), Sprache im Fokus: Festschrift für Heinz Vater (pp. 387-397). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Klein, W. (2000). Prozesse des Zweitspracherwerbs. In H. Grimm (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Vol. 3 (pp. 538-570). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  • Klein, W. (2005). Söldner des Wissens. In R. Kiesow, R. Ogorek, & S. Simitis (Eds.), Summa: Dieter Simon zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 319-332). Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
  • Klein, W. (2005). The grammar of varieties. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the Science of Language and Society (pp. 1163-1171). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • 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. (1997). Und nur dieses allein haben wir. In D. Rosenstein, & A. Kreutz (Eds.), Begegnungen, Facetten eines Jahrhunderts (pp. 445-449). Siegen: Carl Boeschen Verlag.
  • 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.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Introduction Section VII: Language. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 843-844). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1997). Language. In G. Adelman, & B. H. Smith (Eds.), Elsevier's encyclopedia of neuroscience (CD-ROM edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  • 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. (2000). Psychology of language. In K. Pawlik, & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds.), International handbook of psychology (pp. 151-167). London: SAGE publications.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Speech production. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 432-433). Oxford University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Indefrey, P. (2000). The speaking mind/brain: Where do spoken words come from? In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 77-94). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1997). Contextualizing 'contextualization cues'. In S. Eerdmans, C. Prevignano, & P. Thibault (Eds.), Discussing communication analysis 1: John J. Gumperz (pp. 24-30). Lausanne: Beta Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1997). Deixis. In P. V. Lamarque (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of philosophy of language (pp. 214-219). Oxford: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Deixis. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 200-204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In J. Nuyts, & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 13-45). Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Minimization and conversational inference. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Vol. 4 Presupposition, implicature and indirect speech acts (pp. 545-612). London: Routledge.
  • Levinson, S. C., Pederson, E., & Senft, G. (1997). Sprache und menschliche Orientierungsfähigkeiten. In Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (pp. 322-327). München: Generalverwaltung der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
  • Magyari, L. (2005). A nyelv miért nem olyan, mint a szem? (Why is language not like vertebrate eye?). In J. Gervain, K. Kovács, Á. Lukács, & M. Racsmány (Eds.), Az ezer arcú elme (The mind with thousand faces) (first edition, pp. 452-460). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
  • Massaro, D. W., & Jesse, A. (2005). The magic of reading: Too many influences for quick and easy explanations. In T. Trabasso, J. Sabatini, D. W. Massaro, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), From orthography to pedagogy: Essays in honor of Richard L. Venezky. (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Abstract

    Words are fundamental to reading and yet over a century of research has not masked the controversies around how words are recognized. We review some old and new research that disproves simple ideas such as words are read as wholes or are simply mapped directly to spoken language. We also review theory and research relevant to the question of sublexical influences in word recognition. We describe orthography and phonology, how they are related to each other and describe a series of new experiments on how these sources of information are processed. Tasks include lexical decision, perceptual identification, and naming. Dependent measures are reaction time, accuracy of performance, and a new measure, initial phoneme duration, that refers to the duration of the first phoneme when the target word is pronounced. Important factors in resolving the controversies include the realization that reading has multiple determinants, as well as evaluating the type of task, proper controls such as familiarity of the test items and accuracy of measurement of the response. We also address potential limitations with measures related to the mapping between orthography and phonology, and show that the existence of a sound-to-spelling consistency effect does not require interactive activation, but can be explained and predicted by a feedforward model, the Fuzzy logical model of perception.
  • McDonough, L., Choi, S., Bowerman, M., & Mandler, J. M. (1998). The use of preferential looking as a measure of semantic development. In C. Rovee-Collier, L. P. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne (Eds.), Advances in Infancy Research. Volume 12. (pp. 336-354). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
  • McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Cognitive processes in speech perception. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. D. Laver (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 556-585). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1998). Morphology in word recognition. In A. M. Zwicky, & A. Spencer (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 406-427). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • McQueen, J. M. (2005). Speech perception. In K. Lamberts, & R. Goldstone (Eds.), The Handbook of Cognition (pp. 255-275). London: Sage Publications.
  • McQueen, J. M. (2005). Spoken word recognition and production: Regular but not inseparable bedfellows. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 229-244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1998). Discourse comprehension. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: a biological perspective (pp. 229-262). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    The human language processor is conceived as a system that consists of several interrelated subsystems. Each subsystem performs a specific task in the complex process of language comprehension and production. A subsystem receives a particular input, performs certain specific operations on this input and yields a particular output. The subsystems can be characterized in terms of the transformations that relate the input representations to the output representations. An important issue in describing the language processing system is to identify the subsystems and to specify the relations between the subsystems. These relations can be conceived in two different ways. In one conception the subsystems are autonomous. They are related to each other only by the input-output channels. The operations in one subsystem are not affected by another system. The subsystems are modular, that is they are independent. In the other conception, the different subsystems influence each other. A subsystem affects the processes in another subsystem. In this conception there is an interaction between the subsystems.
  • Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships: studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 75-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Ozyurek, A. (2000). Differences in spatial conceptualization in Turkish and English discourse: Evidence from both speech and gesture. In A. Goksel, & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (pp. 263-272). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Share this page