Gerard Kempen

Publications

Displaying 1 - 13 of 13
  • Kempen, G. (2014). Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics, 12, 111-142. doi:10.1007/s12021-013-9191-4.

    Abstract

    The study develops a neurocomputational architecture for grammatical processing in language production and language comprehension (grammatical encoding and decoding, respectively). It seeks to answer two questions. First, how is online syntactic structure formation of the complexity required by natural-language grammars possible in a fixed, preexisting neural network without the need for online creation of new connections or associations? Second, is it realistic to assume that the seemingly disparate instantiations of syntactic structure formation in grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding can run on the same neural infrastructure? This issue is prompted by accumulating experimental evidence for the hypothesis that the mechanisms for grammatical decoding overlap with those for grammatical encoding to a considerable extent, thus inviting the hypothesis of a single “grammatical coder.” The paper answers both questions by providing the blueprint for a syntactic structure formation mechanism that is entirely based on prewired circuitry (except for referential processing, which relies on the rapid learning capacity of the hippocampal complex), and can subserve decoding as well as encoding tasks. The model builds on the “Unification Space” model of syntactic parsing developed by Vosse & Kempen (2000, 2008, 2009). The design includes a neurocomputational mechanism for the treatment of an important class of grammatical movement phenomena.
  • Dijkstra, T., & Kempen, G. (1997). Het taalgebruikersmodel. In H. Hulshof, & T. Hendrix (Eds.), De taalcentrale. Amsterdam: Bulkboek.
  • Kempen, G. (1997). De ontdubbelde taalgebruiker: Maken taalproductie en taalperceptie gebruik van één en dezelfde syntactische processor? [Abstract]. In 6e Winter Congres NvP. Programma and abstracts (pp. 31-32). Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychonomie.
  • Kempen, G., Kooij, A., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1997). Do skilled readers exploit inflectional spelling cues that do not mirror pronunciation? An eye movement study of morpho-syntactic parsing in Dutch. In Abstracts of the Orthography Workshop "What spelling changes". Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Kempen, G. (1997). Taalpsychologie week. In Wetenschappelijke Scheurkalender 1998. Beek: Natuur & Techniek.

    Abstract

    [Seven one-page psycholinguistic sketches]
  • Kempen, G. (1997). Van taalbarrières naar linguïstische snelwegen: Inrichting van een technische taalinfrastructuur voor het Nederlands. Grenzen aan veeltaligheid: Taalgebruik en bestuurlijke doeltreffendheid in de instellingen van de Europese Unie, 43-48.
  • Kempen, G. (1995). De mythe van het woordbeeld: Spellingherziening taalpsychologisch doorgelicht. Onze Taal, 64(11), 275-277.
  • Kempen, G. (1995). Drinken eten mij Nim. Intermediair, 31(19), 41-45.
  • Kempen, G. (1995). 'Hier spreekt men Nederlands'. EMNET: Nieuwsbrief Elektronische Media, 22, 1.
  • Kempen, G. (1995). IJ of Y? Onze Taal, 64(9), 205-206.
  • Kempen, G. (1995). Processing discontinuous lexical items: A reply to Frazier. Cognition, 55, 219-221. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00657-7.

    Abstract

    Comments on a study by Frazier and others on Dutch-language lexical processing. Claims that the control condition in the experiment was inadequate and that an assumption made by Frazier about closed class verbal items is inaccurate, and proposes an alternative account of a subset of the data from the experiment
  • Kempen, G. (1995). Processing separable complex verbs in Dutch: Comments on Frazier, Flores d'Arcais, and Coolen (1993). Cognition, 54, 353-356. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00649-6.

    Abstract

    Raises objections to L. Frazier et al's (see record 1994-32229-001) report of an experimental study intended to test Schreuder's (1990) Morphological Integration (MI) model concerning the processing of separable and inseparable verbs and shows that the logic of the experiment is flawed. The problem is rooted in the notion of a separable complex verb. The conclusion is drawn that Frazier et al's experimental data cannot be taken as evidence for the theoretical propositions they develop about the MI model.
  • Kempen, G. (1995). Van leescultuur en beeldcultuur naar internetcultuur. De Psycholoog, 30, 315-319.

Share this page