Publications

Displaying 301 - 308 of 308
  • Van Wijk, C., & Kempen, G. (1982). Syntactische formuleervaardigheid en het schrijven van opstellen. Pedagogische Studiën, 59, 126-136.

    Abstract

    Meermalen is getracht om syntactische formuleenuuirdigheid direct en objectief te meten aan de hand van gesproken of geschreven teksten. Uitgangspunt hierbij vormde in de regel de syntactische complexiteit van de geproduceerde taaluitingen. Dit heeft echter niet geleid tot een plausibele, duidelijk omschreven en praktisch bruikbare index. N.a.v. een kritische bespreking van de notie complexiteit wordt in dit artikel als nieuw criterium voorgesteld de connectiviteit van de taaluitingen; de expliciete aanduiding van logiscli-scmantische relaties tussen proposities. Connectiviteit is gemakkelijk scoorbaar aan de hand van functiewoorden die verschillende vormen van nevenschikkend en onderschikkend zinsverband markeren. Deze nieuwe index ondetrangt de kritiek die op complexiteit gegeven kon worden, blijkt duidelijk te discrimineren tussen groepen leerlingen die van elkaar verschillen naar leeftijd en opleidingsniveau, en sluit aan bij recente taalpsychologische en sociolinguïstische theorie. Tot besluit worden enige onderwijskundige implicaties aangegeven.
  • Van der Veer, G. C., Bagnara, S., & Kempen, G. (1991). Preface. Acta Psychologica, 78, ix. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(91)90002-H.
  • Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). The use of referential context and grammatical gender in parsing: A reply to Brysbaert and Mitchell. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(5), 467-481. doi:10.1023/A:1005168025226.

    Abstract

    Based on the results of an event-related brain potentials (ERP) experiment (van Berkum, Brown, & Hagoort. 1999a, b), we have recently argued that discourse-level referential context can be taken into account extremely rapidly by the parser. Moreover, our ERP results indicated that local grammatical gender information, although available within a few hundred milliseconds from word onset, is not always used quickly enough to prevent the parser from considering a discourse-supported, but agreement-violating, syntactic analysis. In a comment on our work, Brysbaert and Mitchell (2000) have raised concerns about the methodology of our ERP experiment and have challenged our interpretation of the results. In this reply, we argue that these concerns are unwarranted and, that, in contrast to our own interpretation, the alternative explanations provided by Brysbaert and Mitchell do not account for the full pattern of ERP results.
  • Vigliocco, G., Lauer, M., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic and syntactic forces in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 46-58. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.46.

    Abstract

    Three experiments investigated semantic and syntactic effects in the production of phrases in Dutch. Bilingual participants were presented with English nouns and were asked to produce an adjective + noun phrase in Dutch including the translation of the noun. In 2 experiments, the authors blocked items by either semantic category or grammatical gender. Participants performed the task slower when the target nouns were of the same semantic category than when they were from different categories and faster when the target nouns had the same gender than when they had different genders. In a final experiment, both manipulations were crossed. The authors replicated the results of the first 2 experiments, and no interaction was found. These findings suggest a feedforward flow of activation between lexico-semantic and lexico-syntactic information.
  • Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cognition, 85, B61-B69. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00107-5.

    Abstract

    Graded interference effects were tested in a naming task, in parallel for objects and actions. Participants named either object or action pictures presented in the context of other pictures (blocks) that were either semantically very similar, or somewhat semantically similar or semantically dissimilar. We found that naming latencies for both object and action words were modulated by the semantic similarity between the exemplars in each block, providing evidence in both domains of graded semantic effects.
  • Vonk, W. (2002). Zin in tekst. Psycholinguïstisch onderzoek naar het begrijpen van taal. Gramma/TTT, 8, 267-284.
  • Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105-143.

    Abstract

    We present the design, implementation and simulation results of a psycholinguistic model of human syntactic processing that meets major empirical criteria. The parser operates in conjunction with a lexicalist grammar and is driven by syntactic information associated with heads of phrases. The dynamics of the model are based on competition by lateral inhibition ('competitive inhibition'). Input words activate lexical frames (i.e. elementary trees anchored to input words) in the mental lexicon, and a network of candidate 'unification links' is set up between frame nodes. These links represent tentative attachments that are graded rather than all-or-none. Candidate links that, due to grammatical or 'treehood' constraints, are incompatible, compete for inclusion in the final syntactic tree by sending each other inhibitory signals that reduce the competitor's attachment strength. The outcome of these local and simultaneous competitions is controlled by dynamic parameters, in particular by the Entry Activation and the Activation Decay rate of syntactic nodes, and by the Strength and Strength Build-up rate of Unification links. In case of a successful parse, a single syntactic tree is returned that covers the whole input string and consists of lexical frames connected by winning Unification links. Simulations are reported of a significant range of psycholinguistic parsing phenomena in both normal and aphasic speakers of English: (i) various effects of linguistic complexity (single versus double, center versus right-hand self-embeddings of relative clauses; the difference between relative clauses with subject and object extraction; the contrast between a complement clause embedded within a relative clause versus a relative clause embedded within a complement clause); (ii) effects of local and global ambiguity, and of word-class and syntactic ambiguity (including recency and length effects); (iii) certain difficulty-of-reanalysis effects (contrasts between local ambiguities that are easy to resolve versus ones that lead to serious garden-path effects); (iv) effects of agrammatism on parsing performance, in particular the performance of various groups of aphasic patients on several sentence types.
  • Weber, A. (2002). Assimilation violation and spoken-language processing: A supplementary report. Language and Speech, 45, 37-46. doi:10.1177/00238309020450010201.

    Abstract

    Previous studies have shown that spoken-language processing is inhibited by violation of obligatory regressive assimilation. Weber (2001) replicated this inhibitory effect in a phoneme-monitoring study examining regressive place assimilation of nasals, but found facilitation for violation of progressive assimilation. German listeners detected the velar fricative [x] more quickly when fricative assimilation was violated (e.g., *[bIxt] or *[blInx@n]) than when no violation occurred (e.g., [baxt] or [blu:x@n]). It was argued that a combination of two factors caused facilitation:(1) progressive assimilation creates different restrictions for the monitoring target than regressive assimilation does, and (2) the sequences violating assimilation (e.g., *[Ix]) are novel for German listeners and therefore facilitate fricative detection (novel popout). The present study tested progressive assimilation violation in non-novel sequences using the palatal fricative [C]. Stimuli either violated fricative assimilation (e.g., *[ba:C@l ]) or did not (e.g., [bi: C@l ]). This manipulation does not create novel sequences: sequences like *[a:C] can occur across word boundaries, while *[Ix] cannot. No facilitation was found. However, violation also did not significantly inhibit processing. The results confirm that facilitation depends on the combination of progressive assimilation with novelty of the sequence.

Share this page