Publications

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.

Abstract

An introductory study of the perception of stochastically specified events is reported. The initial problem was to determine whether the perceiver can split visual input data of this kind into random and determined components. The inability of subjects to do so with the stimulus material used (a filmlike sequence of dot patterns), led to the more general question of how subjects code this kind of visual material. To meet the difficulty of defining the subjects' responses, two experiments were designed. In both, patterns were presented as a rapid sequence of dots on a screen. The patterns were more or less disturbed by “noise,” i.e. the dots did not appear exactly at their proper places. In the first experiment the response was a rating on a semantic scale, in the second an identification from among a set of alternative patterns. The results of these experiments give some insight in the coding systems adopted by the subjects. First, noise appears to be detrimental to pattern recognition, especially to patterns with little spread. Second, this shows connections with the factors obtained from analysis of the semantic ratings, e.g. easily disturbed patterns show a large drop in the semantic regularity factor, when only a little noise is added.